Quetzal, a bird sacred to the Maya
REMEMBERING MR. S.
Stalin was still alive.
My parents spoke of “Mr. S.”
Never repeat what you hear at home.
I spoke when spoken to:
Children and fish have no voice.
Santa Claus was banned at the preschool.
The Christmas tree was decorated
with cardboard numerals six,
to celebrate the Six-Year Plan.
On the wall hung a large portrait
of Mr. S. with a marvelous mustache,
arms around smiling children.
Then Mr. S. died. Newspapers showed
“the masses” weeping at his funeral.
After the weeping stopped,
streets changed names.
Portraits of the mustache
were taken off the walls.
New leaders gave speeches admitting
“past errors and deviations.”
My uncle’s double death sentence,
commuted to life in prison,
had been one of those deviations.
A hero of the wartime Underground,
he was released, given treatment
for health problems caused
by torture, a sum of money.
After eight years in prison pajamas,
he could now afford the best suits.
Red banners still flapped like laundry
from official balconies.
In shop windows instead of goods,
pictures of Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
In city parks, begonias were planted to read:
MARCH TOWARD SOCIALISM.
FIGHT FOR PEACE.
Conversation remained
a goulash of politics and rumors
about where to get butter and meat.
Favorite joke: How come
in Poland no one sleeps?
— Because the Party keeps vigil
and the enemy never sleeps.
Aunt Lola was offended by the slogan,
We are the manure
for future generations.
Radio Free Europe
crackled through the static.
Propaganda posters rotted in the rain.
At a New Year’s Eve party,
a Hungarian scientist whispered,
Nothing’s going to change
for a thousand years.
~ Oriana
The head of the statue of Stalin, Budapest 1956
*
WHO IS THE MONSTER — THE “CREATURE” OR VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN?
The Modern Prometheus, Refracted
How are monsters made? In Guillermo del Toro’s new adaptation of Frankenstein for Netflix, several people inform the title character, surgeon Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), that he, rather than the creature he assembled out of corpses, is the real monster. Many readers of Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel have reached the same conclusion: Victor is one of the all-time assholes of British literature. But the various adaptations of the book take different, even opposed, views of what made him that way, and how his malignity infects the world around him, particularly his creature.
Del Toro’s Frankenstein is a tale of bad fathers. Victor’s imperious, cold, demanding physician father drums medical science into his son’s head, beats him when he makes a mistake, and mistreats the boy’s beloved mother, who dies young. Victor blames his father for failing to save his mother’s life, and his determination to discover how to conquer death is less a response to grief than a vow to best the older man. In the movie, Victor has a recurring dream of a “dark angel,” a sort of animated statue, red and surrounded by flames. In the film’s color scheme, red is the color of blood (of which we see a lot) and fire, but also of Victor’s late mother. His ambition transforms what might have been tender memories into an avenging horror.
Instead of preserving the “quiet, even nervous, disposition” of his mother and his boyhood self, the grown-up Victor of the film becomes another version of his father. While he preaches rebellion to a group of stuffy, skeptical, bewigged authorities—announcing that truth only comes “when coaxed by disobedience, free of fear and cowardly dogma”—he bulldozes everyone around him, treating them as means to his own ends. In a brief but very telling scene as Victor sets up his laboratory in a deliriously phallic tower, he subjects his younger brother, William (Felix Kammerer), to the same withholding treatment he suffered as child. When his efforts to animate the creature (Jacob Elordi) finally succeed, Victor, as he tries to teach his “child” to speak, proves to be a parent every bit as impatient and unaffectionate as his own. William’s fiancée, Elizabeth (Mia Goth), with whom Victor falls in love, summarizes him as a man who “tries to control and manipulate everyone and everything around him. Like every tyrant, he delights in playing the victim.”
The many spinoffs of James Whale’s classic 1931 movie adaptation of Frankenstein iterated on Victor as a grandiose mad scientist, a Faustian figure who obsessively pursued his inventions without regard to the consequences. (It requires no imagination to see why, after the bombing of Hiroshima, this aspect of Shelley’s story spoke to the culture.) But the original Victor, Shelley’s Victor, is no monomaniac. The fixation that grips him as a student in Ingolstadt and results in the reanimation of the creature only lasts for about a year, and dissipates the moment Victor lays his horrified eyes on the entity he has made.
This period of fixation resembles an interlude of madness or addiction. In the novel, the similarity between Victor and an addict is fostered by the fact that Victor keeps his labors and his achievement a secret from everyone he knows. Shelley’s Victor is no boastful, commanding maestro, but a man little more than a boy, holed up in his apartment compulsively doing unspeakable things.
That’s right: apartment. The image of Victor in a storm-battered castle, his gothic laboratory offered up to the sky in exchange for its life-giving lightning, is entirely derived from Whale’s movie. Any adaptation truly faithful to Shelley’s novel would be obliged to acknowledge that the original Victor made his creature in an apartment building, using chemistry rather than electricity, although Shelley is pretty vague about the process.
No sooner does he get an eyeful of his unholy creation in action than Victor, overwhelmed with “breathless horror and disgust,” runs out in the street where he stumbles around all night until he encounters an old friend. The pair return to Victor’s flat (the friend unaware of might might lurk there), but the creature is gone. Victor succumbs to a “nervous fever” for a while, and then just … goes back home to Switzerland, sparing not a thought to where his dreadful creation might have gone or what it might be doing.
Although the novelistic device of the unreliable narrator had yet to emerge in the early 1800s, it’s not always clear where Shelley’s views might differ from Victor’s, if at all. As Victor sees it, his season of mad science was a passing fever caused by what today we’d call an unhealthy work–life balance. The Frankensteins of the novel are a loving, close family, whose company, Victor believes, would have kept him from tumbling over the edge into mania.
Shelley’s novel carries the subtitle “The Modern Prometheus,” but, while the Prometheus of Greek myth steals the secret of fire from the gods in order to deliver its benefits to humanity, Victor hasn’t got a philanthropic bone in his body. His desire to “pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation” is fleeting, not the organizing principle of his life, as it is for del Toro’s Victor. Shelley’s Victor is just as narcissistic as del Toro’s but he’s much more vacillating, deciding after he leaves Ingolstadt that he “hated my former studies,” which were merely a “selfish pursuit” that had “cramped and narrowed me.” He becomes once again “the same happy creature” he was before he went off to university, and waltzes back to his family in Geneva with plans to marry his adoptive cousin, Elizabeth, and without a care in the world.
In Shelley’s novel, Victor’s rejection makes the creature bitter, and eventually violent. He kills both William (a child in the novel) and Elizabeth in despair at his inability to connect with humanity and in an attempt to make Victor feel as bereft as himself. Del Toro softens this, making the creature gentle unless he is attacked. Both novel and film imply that the creature’s immense loneliness, not his status as an “abomination,” have made him into a monster, that Victor is ultimately responsible for the destruction his child has committed.
But as for Victor’s monstrousness? Del Toro suggests that the cruelty and arrogance of the father is visited upon and then perpetrated by son, a terrible inheritance of trauma. Shelley seems to think that if Victor had just spent more time with friends and family, eaten sensibly, and taken regular walks in the Alps—in short, if he had had the 19th-century equivalent of a mindfulness practice—he’d never have fallen down the reanimation rabbit hole to begin with. One thing both versions of Victor have in common, though, is their titanic egocentrism, for which their poor creature serves as heartbreaking rebuke. Any accident of fate can make a man bad, but only selfishness can keep him that way.
https://slate.com/culture/2025/11/frankenstein-2025-movie-netflix-guillermo-del-toro-victor-vs-book.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
*
ANOTHER TAKE: A FRANKENSTEIN FOR THE ROMANTASY ERA
Before Victor Frankenstein, played by Oscar Isaac in Guillermo del Toro’s new Netflix adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic tale, connects his Creature to his apparatus to give him the spark of life, he looks at an ivory miniature of a pregnant woman, an artifact from his childhood, then over at his creation, and nods in satisfaction. The Creature, still inert, matches his long-held idea of how his new human might appear. What Victor wakes up to in the morning, having believed that his experiment failed, is a wondrous sight. The Creature—played by the very tall Australian ex-Elvis Jacob Elordi—hovers at the edge of the four-poster in the full sun, one arm on a bedpost, white bandages drifting gorgeously from his arms and shoulders, and wrapping his nethers like a loincloth. To put it bluntly, del Toro’s Creature is hot, an entity almost without precedent in the world of Frankenstein adaptations, but one uniquely suited for the age of romantasy. Filled with joy, Victor embraces his beautiful creation, as violins on the score signal a moment that feels like nothing so much as falling in love.
This is very different from how the Victor of Shelley’s book greets his own “monster.” When the doctor first beholds the Creature, on a “dreary night of November,” he is horrified. “His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful,” he tells us, describing how much work he’s put into making sure that his guy will look like—well—Jacob Elordi. The results are anything but. Although his creation has “lustrous black” hair and teeth “of a pearly whiteness,” he also sports “yellow skin” that barely conceals the muscles and arteries underneath, “watery eyes” set in “dun white sockets,” a “shriveled complexion,” and “straight black lips.”
[Alas, the rest is behind a paywall, so let’s switch to another source ]
Sometimes the interesting thing about film is watching the growth of an auteur. Depending on when you were born, you might have gotten to see the rise of certain artists honing their craft, but the exciting part is that first film, and feeling like you just witnessed the birth of something. I’d consider myself a big fan of Del Toro, who even when he doesn’t top himself as a director, certainly is never boring. he has such a love for film, and for the celebration of monsters, that it really does carry through all the themes. Even his stop-motion animated Pinocchio, which certainly isn’t a straight horror film, finds different beats in what horror is. For the record, my first Del Toro film was Blade 2, which while being the best of the trilogy, is not the film that screams future legend. However, the second film of his I saw, the Devil’s Backbone, certainly did. He flourished in his own language as an artist, while directing mainstream Hollywood features to gain footing, and only eventually reaching enough clout to blend his style with American size budgets.
His latest effort, an adaptation of Mary Shelly’s classic novel, is a labor of love, and in many ways his white whale. I really don’t know what follows this. What horror legend could he possibly top Frankenstein with? Netflix, which can be great for the right director, threw a ton of money at him, and the result is a roughly 150 minute rather comprehensive take on what it means to be a modern Prometheus.
Splitting the story between Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) and his point of view, and that of his eventual creation (Jacob Elordi), we see a case being prosecuted and defended — who is the monster? Who is the genius? Is Victor the genius simply for having figured out how to reanimate, or is it how The Creature essentially relearns everything from scratch. How to speak, how to talk, how to feel, and how to think about his own existence? Really, it is that last part, the sense of self, which leads The Creature to realize he is deeply alone in the world, and without Victor creating a companion for him, perhaps he will always be fated to be through no fault of his own.
The film starts audaciously, with Del toro scrapping Shelley’s slower entry for an action sequence where a ship that has just rescued Victor, comes under attack from The Creature. It is only after this battle that the captain wants to know more about his new passenger, and the foe he was ill equipped to face. Victor tells him about his life growing up with a repressive father (Charles Dance), and how affected he was by the loss of his mother in childbirth to his younger brother William. It is through this that Victor pledges to conquer death, and his scientific experiments begin. At first he seems a bit on the fringe of science, but he eventually catches the attention of a war baron (Christoph Waltz), who agrees to throw money at Frankenstein’s project, but with ulterior motives. He also is how we meet Elizabeth (Mia Goth), who seems to enchant both Victor and William, though she ends up with William.
As the story goes, Victor does manage to eventually piece together through corpses and wiring, “the Creature”, and through a surge of electricity under the right circumstances brings him to life. but the Creature has no memory, no motor skills, and the only word he seems capable of learning is Victor. Fires and pitchfork mobs seem imminent. It is also through here that he is shown a sliver of kindness from Elizabeth, which enrages Victor.
From The Creature's perspective, he discusses being abandoned, trying to escape those who saw him as a monster, and eventually befriending an old blind man (David Bradley), willing to have pleasant conversations with him, and teach him patiently, instead of abusing him the way his master did. Eventually, the Creature comes to yearn for a companion, and knows only Victor can give him one.
Del Toro, who has certainly played around with man's fascination of what a monster is in the most traditional sense, by almost always offering a supposedly human alternative far more monstrous than the unknown we too easily fear. The audience should leave with the feeling that the monster here is not the creation, but the creator, who often makes terrible choices, and if the opportunity presents itself, he blames the creation. It is easy to look at a reanimated corpse and believe that they are the monster, but thanks to a rather thoughtful performance from Jacob Elordi, the role becomes less of a stumbling stiff fool, and more of a wanderer with no place in this world, with no voice to advocate for him. Anyone who sees him as possibly not a monster is never listened to long enough for it to matter, and he’s once again something that needs to be destroyed. That is, until the end, when the captain of the boat is faced with two stories of the same tale. what will he choose to do?
Aside from Elordi, Oscar Isaac is vehemently committed to making Victor detestable. He often comes across as sniveling and privileged, much like Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator. Many have taken on this role, and Isaac is just one more. Truly, while I hope Oscar gets his Oscar one day, it shouldn’t be for this. He’s had much more compelling and complicated roles before. This is just another strong performance, but it isn’t the one. Same can be said for two-time winner Christoph Waltz, who is exactly as solid as expected, but certainly never comes close to the work he won for. Mia Goth, who impressed critics with her work in Pearl, has an opportunity to stay in the horror wheelhouse, but plays a very different kind of role. She’s quieter, not insane, and very kind. She may be gothic in terms of the roles she chooses, but she’s very much the damsel of this story, bending to forces she cannot control. Del Toro utilizes her in a dual role, but really the one worth mentioning is Elizabeth. Which brings me to my biggest complaint about Frankenstein…
In Victor’s story, we see him as a child who lost his mother, which is supposed to be so emotionally devastating that it fuels his research into conquering death. This film does not have an insurmountable runtime, and the movie could have used more time with Victor and his mother. Even a scene or two, establishing that he had an actual dynamic with her separate from that of what he had with his father would go a long way for his pledge. If anything, Del Toro’s choices here almost ring the opposite, like his relationship with his mother is non existent to us as viewers, so Victor’s proclamation that he did it for her is just a placeholder for his own ego.
I might have found more for William to do, or found an actor to portray him that just had a more immediate presence, so his nominal screentime is felt throughout. Charles Dance has that ability to outlast his screentime, and the right presence can do that with only a few moments. Anyone who also recently saw Die My Love likely noticed that Nick Nolte turned in a compelling fleshed out character with maybe 3-5 minutes of screentime.
The audio description by International Digital Center is mostly fine. In just a personal taste, that is not the voice I would have paired with Frankenstein. That’s the voice I’d pair with something else. I’m not sure what, but certainly not this. Gutman’s written text does as much as it can to bring the visuals to the audience. There are a few moments of amplified gore (beyond the obvious assembly of Frankenstein), and those were handled well. Gutman has done well in the horror space before, embracing the ick that comes with the territory. If you didn’t squirm a little at some point, we’re doing it wrong.
I think if I had one note for Gutman, it would be establishing a bit more of the size relativity at the beginning. Being formerly sighted, Frankenstein is typically portrayed as slightly taller than everyone around him, but his entrance in the film almost makes him feel like a titan. After we get to know him, it’s a bit more clear he’s not like the Hulk, but the carnage and chaos at the beginning, mixed with Elordie’s altered voice seem to suggest perhaps The Creature has been taking some growth hormones since last he saw Victor.
I really did love this film. It isn’t my favorite film of the year, nor is it my favorite Del Toro film. It is, however, damn close on both fronts. I think the passion for his projects recently keeps coming through as he’s being granted access and budgets to the stories nearest and dearest to his heart, and it isn’t impossible that he could make another film so profoundly original as Pan’s Labyrinth one day.
If so, he’ll certainly be doing it with Alexander Desplat, who seems to be the Danny Elfman to Del Toro’s Tim Burton. These scores Desplat keep doing for Del Toro are just perfect, and it is because he clearly is in a mind meld with the horror master.
A lot has been said about Del Toro’s Frankenstein, but the same can be said for the work from which it is adapted. The fact that Del Toro can take such a familiar story, put his spin on it, and make it as good as it is showcases why he’s the master of monsters.
https://macthemovieguy.com/2025/11/11/frankenstein-2025/
*
“THE MONSTER IS THE HERO”
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is, of course, the classic Gothic horror tale about a misunderstood monster who was abandoned by his creator and shunned by society. So is there any director more perfectly suited to re-imagine it for a new audience than Guillermo Del Toro? Probably not. He's called it the most important book in his life, and his years-in-the-making adaptation has finally arrived.
It stars Oscar Isaac as the scientist, and, in a gargantuan yet humanizing turn, Jacob Elordi as The Creature. It's dark, epic, and preoccupied with the existential dread of life and death. Was it worth the wait? We think so.
Victor Frankenstein is a narcissistic 19th century doctor obsessed with the prospect of conquering death through science. A series of gruesome and ethically dubious experiments results in the development of the Creature, played by Jacob Elordi. He's this towering being who's alive, but—at least, at first—can't communicate much beyond some grunts. Though, crucially, Victor does pull off his stated goal—the Creature is virtually unkillable.
Now, Victor becomes increasingly frustrated with the Creature's seemingly slow cognitive progression and begins to abuse him. This does not bode well for Victor and the many others who encounter the Creature and immediately assume the worst of him. The Creature seeks both retribution and a reason to find his eternal life worth living. Frankenstein is streaming on Netflix now, though, my goodness, this movie looks beautiful on a big screen.
I really loved this adaptation. I think thematically, it's very interesting. It really is about the relationship between life and death and the fact that, for Victor, the valuing of life is a very self-interested thing. It's very much about his accomplishment and his achievement.
It takes Victor a very long time to even begin to understand that if you were to successfully create life, you would owe something to it.
But as much as I appreciate it thematically, I think what really blew me away about it is that this is a really, really beautiful movie, even though it's a very gruesome movie, in many respects. There's some really gross stuff that goes on in this movie. But nevertheless it has a kind of a lonely enormousness — huge rooms, huge lab, huge landscapes. And it really emphasizes, I think, the isolation of Victor and how that's part of his madness, is that he isolates himself, and that then he isolates this Creature that he creates. I feel weird even saying Creature. That's so dehumanizing.
I think Jacob Elordi is extraordinary. I think Oscar Isaac is wonderful. But I very much appreciated just — you know, Guillermo Del Toro. The first time you're introduced to a woman character, she's going to have some diaphanous veil, like, floating out, and she's going to be dressed all in red. I mean, it's just gorgeous. And I appreciated that very much.
I’d call it "cozy, but gruesome.” The cozy part has to do with that kind of diaphanous veil — it is so gorgeous. Crimson is not the only jewel tone here. But the movie is — you know, as much as it is sort of cozy and wonderful and gorgeous, I found it had a long tail in my head the way that the book does, even though there are some maybe questionable changes in it. And it's very much a movie for these times.
There is no way that anyone who is thinking about or worried about the progression of technology — and in particular, AI right now — isn’t thinking about this in this movie. But one of the things about this book in particular, is, it is written by a woman who had a very, very particular worldview. And it is both large, but it is domestic also. Victor Frankenstein is nothing so much as a really annoyed postpartum mom during a part of the movie. And I really felt for him.
Del Toro has made films in the past that are swoony and feverish and melodramatic, like Crimson Peak, and he's made movies in the past with the hideous outcast who turns out to be more human than the humans around them, like Shape of Water. So you slap these together — swoony, melodramatic, stacks the emotional deck in favor of the monster — that is the elevator pitch for the novel Frankenstein. I mean, like, that's the jacket copy on the back. It's such a gorgeous movie to look at.
And now, here, this movie solidified for me that Jacob Elordi — who is very tall — is able to use his height and his stature to turn him into, like, this kind of, like, sexy man, half-man— sort of man here. And there's moments in this film that are sort of erotic. Like, it's like, it's both a father-son story between Victor and the Creature, but then also, there are moments — there's a very beautiful scene where they kind of, like, almost do a little dance or, like, kind of embrace, in a way. And I was just like, this is gorgeous. Like, everything about this is beautiful. It's complicated. And I just really dug, basically, everything about this film. It made me sad. It made me think about my own life and ponder my own existence. And I don't know if you can ask much more from this story.
Obviously Victor’s heart is with the Creature. But also, he has really made this very much like a father-son dynamic. And I felt like he was much more sort of villainous in this. He's very much a tragic figure.
It ties directly into what Del Toro's approach is, which is perfectly in line with his whole body of work, which is always the monster is the hero. So Del Toro sets out to make Victor even more of a jerk than he is in the book, and by extension, make the Creature more sympathetic. I mean, the Creature does some really nasty stuff in the book.
One of the changes I wondered about was, why add an extra layer of complication to the Elizabeth character, played by Mia Goth? Why make Elizabeth Victor's brother's fiancée, instead of just having her be his fiancée, as she is in the book? What work is that doing?
Isaac is playing Victor as this, you know, preening fop who keeps telling everyone what a genius he is. He abuses the Creature. He tries to get with his own brother's fiancée. All of this is so we never waste any time empathizing with Victor.
And there's something not subtle about that. At one point in the film, somebody turns to Victor and says, you are the monster.
What struck me about the changes is, it shifts more toward the wrongs done to the Creature, more purely about that. And I think it ties into — and one reason I think it may have happened is that through past interpretations of this story, there has been this idea of the monster/Creature as this hulking, terrifying — the green square head and all that stuff. You know, the reductive way that this becomes a story about a big, scary Halloween monster is maybe one of the reasons why this interpretation shifts back even more strongly toward, think about this as not just the wrongs done to this Creature, but focusing on the wrongs done to the Creature by the creator, as opposed to just by society in general.
I think you're absolutely right that Del Toro's heart is always with the Creature. And I think he thinks that's what the story is about. And I think I tend to agree. Because there's a fine line between, is the moral of the story "it's a mistake to mess around with life and try to create life," or is it "it is a moral error to try to create life.” You can apply it to tech and AI, but also, you can apply it to actually deciding to have a child.
It's funny to me that Del Toro is talking about the potential folly of fanatically pursuing your vision, because in some ways, he is a pursuing-your-vision guy, like, a director who is about pursuing your own vision. And in fact, when I look at this film, one of the things I love about it is, I just look at it and think, I think this is his movie that he wanted to make. And it is, as I said, so incredibly him.
The first part of the film is mostly Victor telling his side, and then the monster gets to tell his side. And his side is that, you know, you created me. I can't die. This is terrible. Like, no one accepts me. He does find at least one person who does. He has a horrible, awful existence, and he's trying to wrestle with that. And that, to me, was the most profound aspect of it.
The way that Victor gets to tell his story is that he's been injured, and he's telling it to the people who are trying to save his life. I actually think you start off with a default sympathy for him, because that's what happens when you show somebody injured at the beginning of a movie. Here's a guy who's injured being chased by this very, very, devastatingly destructive monster.
And then as he tells his story, it begins to invert that. But I think he starts with that place of monster — terrifying, person/victim, and then starts to kind of unravel that dynamic and explain how — I mean, there's a reason why the phrase "you've created a monster" came into being. And as far as I know, it's because of this story. And so heaven knows, there are plenty of applications of "created a monster.”
The Karloff film kept him a lumbering brute so he could be scary. But the book Creature, he reads Plutarch and Goethe and Milton. He is so pitiable that you understand his confusion. And — this is the other thing that Del Toro is doing — you justify his rage.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5600702
*
THERE IS NO REAL “OPPOSITION” IN RUSSIA
Yesterday, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a former political prisoner in Russia and part of the Russian anti-Putin camp, was a guest on one of Germany's most popular talk shows. One of many examples of the platforming of Russian "opposition" figures in Western media (I put opposition in quotation marks not because I doubt that these people are against Putin, but because there is no Russian opposition in the traditional sense of the word).
I have argued many times that the romanticization of the Russian anti-Putin camp is misleading and potentially dangerous, because it's delusional. The West should see Russia for what it is. Right now, there is no "other Russia" than the one launching a genocidal war against Ukraine. Yes, there are individual Russians of integrity, but there is no "other Russia".
Concerning people from the Russian anti-Putin camp, one should ask three fundamental questions: First, are they anti-colonial? After all, Russian colonialism is the driving force behind this war. Are they addressing this core issue? Are they speaking about Russian colonial violence and oppression in the past and in the present?
Second, do they accept the Russian societal responsibility for the war against Ukraine, or do they fantasize about "Putin's war"? Third, do they prioritize Ukraine's victory over the imagined "wonderful Russia of the future”?
If you ask these questions, you will discover that Kara-Murza (as well as Yuliia Navalnaia) fail on all three accounts. The only forceful opposition against Russian colonialism right now are the Armed Forced of Ukraine. Not only are Kara-Murza et al. politically irrelevant, they do not even address the fundamental problems of Russia. ~ Francisca Davies, Facebook (my thanks to Violeta Kelertas)
Oriana:
Only a handful of exceptional Russians are able to rise above the massive propaganda shaping the citizens to see colonialism and imperialism as crimes committed by other nations — chiefly the United States, Britain, and France — but never by Holy Russia. Lavrov stated that “Russia never invaded anyone” with such a straight face that you have to conclude he actually believes this, no matter how massive the evidence to the contrary, starting with Ivan the Terrible. England and France, yes, those were colonial nations, but Russia — never. So how did Russia end up with such enormous territory? Apparently by fighting wars of self-defense — only and exclusively wars of self-defense, never aggression.
*
COULD THE SOVIET UNION HAVE SURVIVED?
‘No one has suggested a convincing alternative scenario’
~ Rodric Braithwaite, British Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1988-91) and author of Armageddon and Paranoia: the Nuclear Confrontation (Profile, 2017).
People still argue about the fall of the Roman Empire. They are not going to agree quickly on why the Soviet Union collapsed when it did. Some think it could have lasted for many years, others that the collapse was foreseeable. Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident scientist, foresaw it decades before it happened.
Victory in war took the Soviet armies to the center of Europe, where they stayed. The Soviet Union’s seductive ideology had already given it influence across the world. But after Stalin’s death in 1953 the ideology started looking threadbare, even at home.
In Eastern Europe, inside the Soviet Union itself, the subject peoples were increasingly restless for freedom. Soviet scientists were the equal of any in the world, but their country was too poor to afford both guns and butter and their skills were directed towards matching the American military machine, rather than improving the people’s welfare. It worked for a while. But in 1983 the Soviet Chief of Staff admitted that ‘We will never be able to catch up with [the Americans] in modern arms until we have an economic revolution. And the question is whether we can have an economic revolution without a political revolution’.
The Soviet leaders were not stupid. They knew something had to be done. In 1985, after three decrepit leaders died in succession, they picked Mikhail Gorbachev to run the country: young, experienced, competent and – they wrongly thought – orthodox. But Gorbachev believed that change was inescapable. He curbed the KGB, freed the press and introduced a kind of democracy. He was defeated by a conservative establishment, an intractable economy and an unsustainable imperial burden. It was the fatal moment, identified by the 19th-century French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, when a decaying regime tries to reform – and disintegrates.
Russians call Gorbachev a traitor for failing to prevent the collapse by force. Foreigners dismiss him as an inadequate bungler. No one has suggested a convincing alternative scenario.
*
‘Aimed at fixing the faults in Soviet society, Gorbachev’s policies emphasized them’
~ James Rodgers, Author of Assignment Moscow: Reporting on Russia from Lenin to Putin (I.B. Tauris, 2020) and former BBC Moscow correspondent.
Lauded in its stirring anthem as the ‘Indestructible Union of Free Republics’, the USSR entered the 1980s as a superpower. Few foresaw then that it would collapse early in the following decade. While the ‘free republics’ part of the heroic lyric was barely believed outside – or, indeed, inside – the territory which they covered, the ‘indestructible’ part seemed much more convincing.
Yet the system was failing. Yuri Andropov, who became Soviet leader in 1982 after being head of the KGB, understood that – the secret police were always the best-informed part of Soviet society. He launched reforms to address the economic stagnation he inherited.
Andropov’s death in 1984 was followed by that of his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, the year after. The Communist elite turned then to relative youth and energy. Mikhail Gorbachev was 54. In him, the Soviet Union had a leader who believed that its creaking system could be reformed and made fit for purpose. It could not. Aimed at fixing the faults in Soviet society, Gorbachev’s policies of perestroika (‘reconstruction’) and glasnost (‘openness’) – it was a time of unprecedented press freedom, for both Russian and international journalists – ended up emphasizing them.
Attempts to crack down on the widespread drunkenness that plagued the Soviet workplace proved especially unpopular with large parts of the population. As the author of Vodka and Gorbachev, Alexander Nikishin, later asked: ‘Did he understand who he was getting into a fight with?’ The question could be applied to Gorbachev’s wider strategy. After hardliners in his own party tried – and failed – to take power in a short-lived coup in 1991, the Soviet system was finished.
The Soviet economy was not strong enough both to maintain a military system at superpower level and give its people a good standard of living. On my first trip to Moscow, as a language student in the 1980s, I bought a record of that Soviet national anthem. I paid more for the plastic bag to carry it in than for the actual record. It is a small example of the economic contradictions that meant the Soviet Union could not have survived.
‘In Soviet Kazakhstan, the scale of resistance took Moscow by surprise’
~ Joanna Lillis, Author of Dark Shadows: Inside the Secret World of Kazakhstan (I.B. Tauris, 2019).
In 1986, when Kazakhs took to the streets to protest against the Soviet government in Moscow, nobody had an inkling that firing up the demonstrators in Soviet Kazakhstan was a heady cocktail of ingredients that would gather momentum around the USSR and help bring it down five years later. Disillusion with out-of-touch leaders ruling them from the distant Kremlin; disenchantment with inequality in a hypocritical communist state that professed equality for all; stirrings of national pride among the Kazakhs, who went out to protest against the Kremlin’s imperious imposition of a Russian leader from outside Kazakhstan. The scale of resistance took Moscow by surprise, an indication of how disconnected from the thinking of ordinary Soviet citizens their leaders had become.
The reformer Mikhail Gorbachev had recently come to power promising glasnost, so that his people could freely voice their opinions in a more tolerant Soviet Union. When the Kazakhs took to the streets to do that, Gorbachev sent in the security forces to quell the demos with bloodshed.
The Kazakhs’ bid to make Moscow heed their frustrations failed. But the rejection of high-handed colonial rule by other nations in the Soviet Union, who were unofficially expected to kowtow to Russian superiority while officially all the USSR’s peoples were equal, soon became a driving force in the country’s collapse. In 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc and the humiliating Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan after a decade of pointless warfare confirmed that the superpower was waning. In 1986, the Kazakhs had no idea all this was looming. But they were unwittingly holding up a mirror to the failings of the Soviet system, which was not fit for purpose – and could not, in those historical circumstances, survive.
*
‘If the Communist Party had retained control of the media, it could, perhaps, have survived anything’
Richard Millington, Senior Lecturer in German at the University of Chester:
The Soviet Union could not have survived, because by 1991 the Communist Party had lost control of the media and thus the public sphere. Key to the survival of any dictatorship is strict control of the media, which shapes public opinion and promotes tacit acceptance of a regime. Though many Soviet citizens may have claimed not to believe what was written in their newspapers, they were never aware of just how far removed from reality the reports were. When Mikhail Gorbachev ascended to power in 1985, it was his policy of glasnost that let the genie out of the bottle.
In his attempt to ‘open up’ society, Gorbachev permitted the press more freedom of expression. Some historians have viewed this move as a result of the fact that Gorbachev (born in 1931) was the first leader of the Soviet Union to have cut his political teeth in a de-Stalinized USSR. But his policy backfired. Glasnost meant that news outlets could lay bare the failings of the Soviet system and the Communist Party. Perhaps more than anything else, their reporting of the horrific accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 illustrated the Party’s incompetence and shredded citizens’ belief not only in its ability to govern effectively, but also to keep them safe. In fact, in 2006, Gorbachev pinpointed Chernobyl and the resulting media fallout as the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
By 1991 the game was up for the Communist Party. Glasnost had permitted dissenting voices to be heard and political movements that had once been suppressed to gain traction and support. After a failed attempt by Communist hardliners to retake control in August of that year, the Party was banned and with it disappeared the glue that was keeping the Soviet Union together. If the Communist Party had retained control of the media, it could, perhaps, have survived anything. We need only look to the Chinese example for what can happen when a dictatorship remains in full control of the public sphere.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/head-head/could-soviet-union-have-survived
Oriana:
I don’t think the Soviet Union had any realistic chance of survival. There were multiple reasons for that, including the emergence of strong movements for national independence in the subjugated republics and Moscow’s satellite countries in Eastern Europe. But one factor stands out for me because of my personal experience: the lack of genuine belief in Soviet-type “socialism.” The failure of ideology was at least as important as the economic failure. The hypocrisy about the ideals of freedom, human rights, the greatest good for the greatest number — but especially for the ordinary working man — leads to bitterness and cynicism.
Your intelligence tells you this is all power play and manipulation using bankrupt slogans ("Proletarians of all nations, unite!") — but your heart yearns for something to believe in. Religion has something to offer when you are eleven, but not when you are twenty-one and know some basic science. Yet the yearning doesn't entirely disappear. There has to be something more to life than finding a place to park, or even, to make it more relevant to the Russian circumstances, having a kitchen and a bathroom all to yourself and your spouse and 1.1 children (Misha Firer doubts the official figure of 1.4, given out when it was still legal to reveal Russia's fertility rate).
I use the quotation marks around the word socialism" — because the official “socialism” wasn’t anything envisioned by Karl Marx. It was a highly corrupt “state capitalism,” with the state rather than private companies owning the means of production. The state chose to concentrate on building military power rather than consumer goods and services. It was a classic “guns versus butter” trade-off. In the twentieth century, only the United States was rich enough to afford both guns and butter. Not that the Soviet leadership was ever interested in the welfare of its citizens, many of them colonial subjects, Turkic rather than Slavic, Islamic rather than Russian Orthodox. But even aside from cultural and religious differences, the tens of millions subjugated people hated Russia. Their ancestors hated the imperial Russia; the younger generations hated the “Communist” Russia. The leaders of puppet governments knew better than to count on the loyalty of the local population who saw their "leaders" as traitors and hypocrites who sold out to a colonial, imperialist power while delivering long speeches against colonialism and imperialism.
As Mikhail Iossel stated, “Russia was never a socialist country. It was always a fascist country.”
Since “fascist” is an overused word, let me use a term that I think is more accurate: AUTHORITARIAN. “People’s Democracy” — what a laugh! Yes, fake elections were periodically held, but the results were predetermined. The system owned not only the means of productions, but also the organs of propaganda, and — let’s not forget — an extensive prison system, with interrogators trained in using torture. The system was based on a huge lie, intellectually attractive from afar (such wonderful ideals! not like the shameless money-grubbing capitalism), yet in practice so weak that it had to be supported by an extensive apparatus of oppression. Indeed it seemed that “nothing would change for a thousand years.”
And then the explosion in the moonshine factory.
*
THE CORRUPT RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CLERGY
Bishop Pitirim of Skopin and Shatsk believes that feeling of happiness is inappropriate in Russia. There are only sorrows on earth, so a Russian should always appear mournful.
”Rejoicing in life and laughing are inappropriate in Russia. We don't smile. Russians don't laugh. But foreigners smile all the time, all the time, with all their false teeth, but we don't, even if we have dentures.”
That explains why Archbishop Nestor is so good at poker: he never smiles or laughs. However, he is allowed to enjoy fine wine, beautiful women and a game of competitive poker because he’s from the ruling elites but serfs must work and feel sorrows.
Patriarch Kirill, the Chief of Russian Christian Church, was a KGB officer with the call sign Agent Ponomarev.
In the 90s, Kirill was selling contraband cigarettes with his KGB buddies but figured he can make way more money as a real priest selling candles from the church shops and church lands to housing developers who rewarded in kickbacks.
After Putin’s troops invaded Ukraine, Kirill was calling out for volunteers to join the army to attack members of Moscow patriarchate just because they happen to live on the other side of the border. He publicly blessed nuclear weapons for which Pope called him “Putin’s altar boy.”
Lately, Agent Ponomarev changed his tune and he now pretends that he cares deeply about the Ukrainians.
“We pray for Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are very close to me” and expressed hopes that they preserve fond memories of him.
Dude, you supported war against the Ukrainians. What fond memories are they gonna have of you?
Ah, our ruling elites. They have no shame. ~ Misha Firer, Quora
*
WHY IT TAKES SO LONG TO BUILD ANYTHING IN RUSSIA
artificial ski slope in Pavlovskaya Poyma
To all of you who have been wondering how come it’s taken Russian military four years to advance 100 kilometers across the border in Ukraine at the expense of 40% of the state budget, I present exhibit one: the artificial ski slope in Moscow suburb that the construction workers have been unable to dismantle for TWO YEARS.
The last time a worker died when a crane collapsed, and this time around a chunk of the tower fell damaging sixty cars, injuring two, and shattering windows of the adjacent buildings.
Why did they build an INDOOR ski slope in the coldest country on earth? And more importantly why are they dismantling it a few years later when it’s located in a residential neighborhood where it’s been extremely popular because there’s nothing else to do there and it takes four hours just to get out of this concrete jungle due to intense traffic and no public transportation options?
Well, because the rich can afford to fly to France to do alpine skiing and the poor can do cross country skiing, and the developers need space to build more high rises in the most densely populated condo complex in Eastern Europe.
Come to think of it Putin is waging a war in Ukraine for the same reason: to add more territory to the largest country in the world whose population corresponds to that of Bangladesh or Java Island. What difference does it make when all these new Russian citizens are gonna live within a few square miles of 40-story buildings anyways.
A ferry from the Russian Black Sea port of Sochi to Trabzon in Turkey was launched for the first time in 14 years but it was prevented from entering Sochi after a two-day wait and it is now returning to Turkey due to security reasons.
Some Russian tourists legal stay in Turkey has expired and they were not accepted upon return.
They will be forever adrift in the sea unable to disembark in Turkey nor Russia.
An explosion at a moonshine lab in an apartment in Kamyshin in Volgograd region injured three moonlighting moonshiners, one of whom died.
Moonshine on you crazy diamond.
[an ad for a driver to transport a nuclear missile]
Pulled this one down from Avito, Russian classified ads website.
A job offer to drive Putin’s new super duper Burevestnik missile from the military base to the launching pad. Pay a ton of money for the radiation exposure. An extra bonus, the missile might explode like the moonshine lab.
The military has actually revealed the location of the doomsday weapon: Orekhovo-Zuevo urban district. Good to know it’s not a secret. Help to steer clear of that location until the maiden flight is over. ~ Misha Firer, Quora
David Parry:
Love the bit about the Flying Dutchmen, er, Russians, stuck on the ferry. Will Tom Hanks do another film? (The one about the guy stuck at an airport; based on an Iranian who was stuck in a French airport for a very long time.)
Misha Firer:
Why do sanctions not work? Because pretty much all Third World countries continue trading with Russia.
How about Goldman Sachs. They help Russia skirt sanctions and help traders buy its oil. In exchange Putin let them trade in the stocks of his oil companies.
Arek Tarasiuk:
Such radiation would place it as illegal in any other country to advertise a job. This is sick. How desperate people have to be to take it. The government has no mercy in Russia.
*
NATIONS WITHIN RUSSIA THAT WOULD PREFER TO BE INDEPENDENT
The first obvious candidate is Chechens. De facto, Chechnya is already a state within a state. One shouldn’t expect federal laws to work there. It’s quite independent, and the only thing that holds them is a feudal bond between Kadyrov and Putin. When Putin dies, I expect them to declare independence officially.
Chechnya is a hardcore Мuslim state that considers itself a successor of the Caucasian Imamate — the main opponent of the Russian Empire in the Caucasian Wars that lasted most of the 19th century. They attempted to do so after the USSR's collapse, which failed but cost so much blood for Russia that if the Chechens make one more attempt, no one would have the balls to stop them.
“The Heart of Chechnya” Mosque was built in the place of the central square in Grozny, which was completely destroyed in the Chechen wars.
The second obvious candidate is Tatarstan. It’s one of the most notable remaining pieces of the Golden Horde — Khanate of Kazan. It’s 50/50 populated with Russians and Tatars, who are Muslim Mongoloid people speaking a Turkic language. This makes them quite distinct from Russians and helps to hold on to some strong nationalistic ideas. The great history of Mongol dominance over Russia also helps.
After the USSR’s collapse, they also declared independence, but they never had any army to support the claim, so this independence was dismissed by the president’s decree. On the way to their aspirations lies a problem — their territory is an enclave in Russia. So I can see their independence only in the case of the total collapse of Russia. In such a case, Tatarstan could collect around itself all ex-Golden Horde territories — everything between the Volga River and the Ural mountains.
Kul Sharif Mosque in Kazan is named in honor of one of the prominent defenders of Kazan in the war against Moscow.
*
WHY NAZI GERMANY KEPT FIGHTING EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW THE WAR WAS LOST
It is hard to believe that Germany kept on fighting even in 1945, when Germany already understood that it was destined to lose. Most of them would have given up to stop the shed of blood, but the Nazis were not ready to give up. Why? This is attributed to a number of key reasons.
German soldier after the surrender at Stalingrad
To begin with, Hitler was not ready to give up. He dwelled on the previous withdrawal of Germany in World War I and hated the premature withdrawal. He gave a ruthless order: Fight to the last man, even when it was the destruction of the country. As a commander, there was no one who could stop the war as long as Hitler was in authority.
Secondly, Nazis had used brutal coercion to achieve compliance. An officer who deserted or a soldier who aired an opinion “We cannot win,” would be caught and executed by the SS in haste. Soldiers did not just fight because they were scared of the enemy power but because the fear of internal reprisal was big.
Thirdly, the leaders of the Nazis were afraid of losing. Realizing their war crimes like the holocaust, they knew they could be easily arrested and executed.
Besides, the government spread rumors that German families would suffer atrocities at the hands of Soviet forces in case the country was taken over. This propaganda made the soldiers believe that they had to keep resisting so as to protect their homes.
Therefore, they continued to fight till the war ended not in any realistic expectations of winning it but because Hitler gave an order and they did not want to be held responsible for their atrocities. ~ Alex Colby
David Eliezer:
The great myth of WW1 was that Germany had given up when it was not yet beaten, and the Nazi leaders certainly believed that. They were never going to let that happen again.
When Roosevelt died, they imagined it was a great providence, similar to when Frederick the Great was besieged in 1761 by Empress Elizabeth of Russia, when she suddenly died, and was succeeded by an admirer of Frederick, and so lifted the siege and returned the conquered lands.
*
MARY CASSATT
Mary Cassatt once stormed out of a Paris gallery, furious — not because her work was rejected, but because it was dismissed as “too feminine to matter.”
It was the 1870s, and Paris was the center of the art world — a place ruled entirely by men. Women weren’t allowed to attend life-drawing classes with nude models, weren’t taken seriously by galleries, and were told to stick to “domestic subjects.” Cassatt, a banker’s daughter from Pennsylvania, didn’t listen. She crossed an ocean, burned through her savings, and vowed to prove them wrong.
At the Paris Salon, critics sneered at her quiet portraits of mothers and children. “Women painting women,” one wrote, “is like birds painting the sky.” Cassatt didn’t respond with words — she responded with rebellion. When she met Edgar Degas, the notoriously arrogant Impressionist, he saw something few others did: rage wrapped in restraint. “There is someone in you,” he told her, “who sees.”
He invited her to join the Impressionist circle — the only American and one of the few women to ever do so. Suddenly, she was painting alongside Monet, Renoir, and Degas — men who captured the world outside. Cassatt captured the world inside — and in doing so, changed what art could say about women.
Her paintings weren’t sentimental. They were psychological, radical. She painted mothers not as saints, but as thinkers — complex, exhausted, human. Her brush turned tenderness into resistance. “I paint women who matter,” she said. “Because no one else will.”
The male critics called her subjects “trivial.” Cassatt knew better. In an era when women couldn’t vote or control their own finances, she painted them reading, teaching, and thinking — acts of quiet revolution. Every canvas was a manifesto disguised as intimacy.
(I’ve lost the rest of the article and its source. But the content seems to be complete in its own way.)
*
A growing number of adults in the US are opting out of parenthood. In 2023, 47% of adults younger than 50 said that they are unlikely to ever have children – up 10 percentage points from 2018, according to a Pew Research Center report. The Pew report surveyed differences between non-parents aged 50 and older, and under-50 adults who do not have kids and are unlikely to in the future. The older cohort’s top reasons for not having children were that it just didn’t happen (39%) and that they didn’t find the right partner (33%).
Meanwhile, the younger cohort’s most common response was that they just don’t want kids (57%; other top responses were “wanting to focus on other things” (44%), concerns about the state of the world (38%) and not being able to afford a child (36%).
Research like this helps dispel the myth that not wanting children is a fringe or uncommon desire, says Zachary Neal, a professor of psychology at Michigan State University. In his own demographic research centered on adults in Michigan in 2020, Neal found that about a quarter identify as childfree.
De-stigmatizing the idea of not wanting children benefits everyone, says Amy Blackstone, a sociologist at the University of Maine, because it helps us all acknowledge that parenthood is a lot of work and that having children is a consequential decision. We can also loosen the grip of stereotypes – “like that we hate kids, that we’re selfish”, says Blackstone or that they’ll struggle to take care of themselves in their older years.
Four adults aged 50 and older told the Guardian about what their lives have been like without children.
1. Sharon, 50, Brooklyn, New York
What is your marital status?
I’ve been with my husband, 51, for 21 years; married for 17.
How and when did you realize you didn’t want kids?
I’m first generation Hmong – in our families, it’s never even a question: it’s assumed you’re going to have kids, you’re going to be a good wife, be part of the family and build the family. It’s not uncommon for Hmong families to have 10+ children. So there was always an expectation, and I never really questioned it, but I also felt that strong urge to have kids of my own.
I feel like I really could’ve gone either way. But then, when my husband and I got married and he told me he was leaning toward not having kids, I said: “OK, I’m fine with that.”
What pushback or stigma, if any, have you faced?
In the 1990s, when I was in my mid-20s and I didn’t have kids, people thought that was weird. Then when I got married at 33, everybody was like, “Hurry, you have to have kids in the next year because you only have one or two years before it’s a geriatric pregnancy.”
What presence do children, or caregiving generally, have in your life?
In the Hmong community you always have a lot of cousins and nieces and nephews around. I was also a Sunday school teacher, and I worked in youth development for 15 to 20 years of my career.
We’ve always been very active in my nieces’ and nephews’ lives. Even now, I’ll fly them out here when they need a break. My nephew stayed with us for a month before the pandemic because he was in between school and work and I said “come live with us.”
My husband and I also have friends who are much younger than us, who we joke are kind of like our kids. Plus, I co-founded Hmong NYC, a community group for Hmong people in New York City. The Hmong kids here call me “Hmong mom” and my husband “Hmong dad” even though he’s not Hmong – we always host people and give them a place to stay. We stay close with them even after they leave and now we have friends who are like family all around the world. Our “village” is so big.
What would you like to say to any younger adults considering a childfree life?
You’ll have to repeat yourself all the time and get people used to the idea that you mean it. The more you confront it and the more you explain this to people, the more you normalize it. And that’s an important community to make visible.
2. Diana, 65, San Antonio, Texas
What is your marital status?
I got married in my 30s, but my husband passed away in 2009, when he was 45. I didn’t get married again.
How and when did you realize you didn’t want kids?
My husband wanted kids, and I love kids, but it wasn’t a make-or-break thing for either of us. We both traveled a lot for work and though we kept talking about it, it just didn’t happen.
When I hit my 40s we talked about adoption and he considered becoming “Mr Mom”, a stay-at-home parent. But in the end, we were both very committed to our careers.
What pushback or stigma, if any, have you faced?
I didn’t get as much of that as I thought I might, especially coming from a Latino background. Our siblings already had children, so both our parents already had grandchildren and so there was no immediate push from them for us to have kids. Some of our friends, when they were having children, would ask, “Are you two going to have kids?” Or some people asked, “Is it that you can’t have kids?” – which is rude. But that was the minority, and we always had friends who also didn’t have kids.
What presence have children, or caregiving generally, had in your life?
I have nine lovely nieces and nephews. My husband and I were there when they were born, we helped paint nurseries. When my sister and brother-in-law had rigid work schedules, my husband and I would be the ones to drive them to or pick them up from school. We went to almost all of their school plays. At one point, I was the Volunteer of the Year at my niece’s school – that was right after my husband died. I took a leave of absence from work and stayed with my sister’s family.
What would you like to say to any younger adults considering a childfree life?
Sometimes people will say that, without your own biological kids, your life is not complete or that you’re missing something. I disagree. The world is a big place, and it has a lot of problems. I can still contribute to the world and help out the next generation – I don’t need to bring my own child into the world to do that.
3. Jerry, 79, British Columbia
What is your marital status?
I’m married. She’s 76 years old and we’ve been together since 1987.
How and when did you realize you didn’t want kids?
I thought everyone wanted kids and that included me. But in my 20s, I dated several women who were single mothers and I found the children were a barrier between us. I was also a teacher for 47 years, and the longer I taught, the more I knew that kids were not for me. Kids control your life and they are very expensive to raise – not just financially, but also in time and energy. Your interests suffer when you’ve got kids.
What pushback or stigma, if any, have you faced?
The family and societal pressure was relentless. My parents ganged up on me, saying they wanted me to give them grandkids. People – even strangers – told me all the time that I was making the wrong choice, that I would regret it, and that I would change my mind.
When people say things like “Who will take care of you when you’re older?” I point out that first of all, that’s a very selfish reason to bring children into the world. Second, what’s to guarantee that your children will live anywhere near you and will be ready, willing and able to take care of you? After all, most people’s children will have children – and other responsibilities – of their own. I anticipate moving into a retirement home some day.
What do you think you’ve been able to achieve or enjoy that you might not have been able to if you had kids?
I did a lot of volunteer work for the Lung Association and I founded No Kidding! a social club for childfree couples and singles that now has over 40 chapters. I’ve written two books for language teachers – Games Language People Play and Whatcha Gonna Learn from Comics?
In daily life, nobody’s asking for me or going without because I’m not there – nobody is dependent on my presence. It’s very freeing.
What would you like to say to any younger adults considering a childfree life?
Don’t have children if you aren’t really sure, because they are forever. If you don’t want kids, see what that looks like for you. You can undo being childfree later, if you choose. You can adopt, you can foster, there are so many choices. But creating a child is a lifetime commitment.
The most important thing is that you give potential parenthood the attention it deserves. It is most likely the most important and irrevocable decision you will make in your life. If you marry the wrong person, buy the wrong house or get into the wrong career, you can undo what you’ve done and take a different path. If you have children and regret it, you are socially and legally responsible for every one of them for the rest of your life or theirs.
4. Sarah, 59, San Leandro, CA
What is your marital status?
I got married when I was 25, but we divorced when I was 30. I never married again.
How and when did you realize you didn’t want kids?
I never really wanted children. When my ex and I got married we decided that we were not going to have children. He could’ve gone either way, but my view was that you shouldn’t have kids unless you’re 100% committed to it and love the idea.
When I thought about the possibility, I knew that I’d likely have to raise them alone – a lot of marriages end in divorce, but even married women end up carrying the majority of the childcare burden. I didn’t think that I could support myself and another human being without immense struggle and I just didn’t think that would be fair to anybody.
What pushback or stigma, if any, have you faced?
My parents never pressured me or any of my sisters. I did feel a little bit of pressure from doctors. They would say things like “when you get pregnant” or “X things will change after you have kids” – making lots of assumptions.
What presence have children, or caregiving generally, had in your life?
I have friends who have children, and they’re in my life. My best friend’s son, for example – I was involved in his life from the very beginning, and I consider him my friend now, too.
What do you think you’ve been able to achieve or enjoy that you might not have been able to if you had kids?
I have a pretty carefree life. I spend 80% of my life in my garden – I have so many pictures of all my flowers. Some people have tons of pictures of family, I have pictures of my flowers and cats.
I love to go to the beach. It’s 40 minutes from my house so I’ll get up at 5 in the morning, drive out with a thermos of coffee and just hang out until I’m ready and I’m home by 8 o’clock.
My husband wanted kids, and I love kids, but it wasn’t a make-or-break thing for either of us. We both traveled a lot for work and though we kept talking about it, it just didn’t happen.
When I hit my 40s we talked about adoption and he considered becoming “Mr Mom”, a stay-at-home parent. But in the end, we were both very committed to our careers.
What pushback or stigma, if any, have you faced?
I didn’t get as much of that as I thought I might, especially coming from a Latino background. Our siblings already had children, so both our parents already had grandchildren and so there was no immediate push from them for us to have kids. Some of our friends, when they were having children, would ask, “Are you two going to have kids?” Or some people asked, “Is it that you can’t have kids?” – which is rude. But that was the minority, and we always had friends who also didn’t have kids.
What presence have children, or caregiving generally, had in your life?
I have nine lovely nieces and nephews. My husband and I were there when they were born, we helped paint nurseries. When my sister and brother-in-law had rigid work schedules, my husband and I would be the ones to drive them to or pick them up from school. We went to almost all of their school plays. At one point, I was the Volunteer of the Year at my niece’s school – that was right after my husband died. I took a leave of absence from work and stayed with my sister’s family.
What would you like to say to any younger adults considering a childfree life?
Sometimes people will say that, without your own biological kids, your life is not complete or that you’re missing something. I disagree. The world is a big place, and it has a lot of problems. I can still contribute to the world and help out the next generation – I don’t need to bring my own child into the world to do that.
https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/2024/sep/16/childfree-no-kids-experience
*
57% of men say they want kids, but only 45% of women do.
~ https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/16/why-more-americans-dont-want-kids.html
Oriana:
First, let me comment on the difference between men and women wanting children. When I was growing up, I heard this particular anecdote several times. A woman on a train was asked by a male fellow passenger who many children she had. "One," she replied. "If I were a woman, I'd want to have many children," the man said. The woman answered, "I too would want to have many children — if I were a man."
Some muted chuckling usually followed this anecdote. There was no need to explain the reasons the man wanted many children, since everyone knew it would the woman who'd bear them and do most of the child-rearing chores. So my first attitude toward having children was that it was an overwhelming sacrifice — on the part of the woman (and it was taken for granted that she worked full time).
Nevertheless, there was a time when I wanted to have a child. Just one child — I knew I couldn’t cope with more, even if I hadn’t become a writer. But life kept leading me away from motherhood. It was never the right time, the right partner, the right circumstances.
Perhaps my most powerful moment of clarity came when I came across this question: “If you couldn’t have a biological child, would you consider adopting?” My instant response was such a vehement “No!” that I couldn’t delude myself any longer. No, there would be no bedtime reading of Winnie the Pooh. There'd be no replay of my own childhood, or an improved one. You can’t have it all.
*
QUESTIONS THAT CREATE FRIENDSHIP
The right questions can help us connect with strangers – and create closer bonds between parents and children.
In 2024, a team of psychologists at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands tested a deceptively simple idea: could being asked 14 specially designed questions by their parents help children feel more loved?
The experiment was based on some well-evidenced psychological insights: as the researchers pointed out in their paper, feeling loved by their parents is known to be "critical for children's health and well-being." Finding ways to nurture that feeling could therefore potentially benefit families in many ways.
Previous experiments with adults by other researchers had suggested that asking the right questions can help people feel closer to each other. Known as the "fast-friends procedure", this process gained global attention far beyond research departments some years ago after a journalist tested the questions on a romantic date.
In its classic format, the fast-friends procedure involves pairs of adults asking each other profound, thought-provoking, personal questions such as: "If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?" This encourages the participants to reveal more about their innermost feelings, which can foster a sense of connection. In adults, the procedure has been successfully replicated in many different contexts. But would it work for the bond between parents and children?
Eddie Brummelman, a developmental and social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, and his colleagues, tested this by adapting the questions in the classic fast-friends procedure to make them suitable for children aged eight to 13 and their parents. Then they got the parents and children chatting, with the parents asking their kids questions such as:
If you could travel anywhere in the world, which country would you like to visit? And why?
What is the strangest thing that you have ever experienced?
What is the last time you felt alone? What made you feel that way?
The children then took a simple questionnaire to rate how loved and supported they felt before and after they had discussed the questions with their parents. The discussions took just nine minutes, but the children's ratings were significantly higher at the end of the experiment – suggesting that the procedure does increase their feeling of being loved. It wasn't just the chance to have a chat as such that made the difference: small talk, such as the parents asking about the children's favorite ice cream or movie for example, was less likely to produce such a change.
Brummelman found some of the interactions extremely moving. "I really got goose bumps," he says. "They were very, very meaningful." He found that in many instances, the families had not explored these topics before. "We touched on topics that people apparently don't talk about spontaneously.”
The information we offer up in intimate conversations often encourages the other party to open up as well, studies found.
He suggests that people – and particularly parents, when talking to their kids – often shy away from negative or painful topics. These questions, however, prompt family members to show their fears and vulnerabilities. "Rather than just talking about leisure and work, the parents and kids spoke about death, for instance," he says. "It encouraged them to talk about topics that really matter."
The results chime with earlier findings in psychological research regarding the impact of "self-disclosure" – the exchange of personal or private information that one person reveals to another person during a conversation. Going back decades, studies have found that self-disclosure can create feelings of closeness between strangers, students and colleagues.
A SHORT-CUT TO INTIMACY?
If this sounds vaguely familiar, that may be thanks to a viral New York Times article that explored self-disclosure in dating focused on 36 specific questions. Asking them could help people fall in love, the journalist argued. But the principle can in fact be applied to any conversation, without ever referring to the original prompts, says Brummelman: "It's more a shift of mindset than a list of questions."
The original study – titled "the experimental generation of interpersonal closeness", and published in the late 1990s – did not even measure participants' feelings of romantic love. From the very start, the fast-friends procedure was designed to enhance social connection in general, as I explain in my book on friendship, The Laws of Connection.
The experiment was the brainchild of Arthur Aron at Stony Brook University in New York. He and his colleagues suspected that people's feelings of closeness in any given conversation would depend on their level of self-disclosure. To test this hypothesis, they prepared two different sets of discussion points. One set were more general questions which stimulated small talk; the other focused on more profound, personal, transformational moments or thoughts.
The participants were sorted into pairs, who were given a series of questions to discuss over the next 45 minutes. Half the pairs saw the questions that stimulated small talk, such as:
How did you celebrate last Halloween?
Where did you go to high school?
Do you think left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people?
What was the last concert you saw? How many of that band's albums do you own? Had you seen them before? Where?
They were perfectly reasonable questions, but they weren't necessarily delving into someone's inner life.
The rest of the participants were given more probing prompts, such as:
What would constitute a perfect day for you?
Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?
What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?
Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?
This was the high self-disclosure condition, designed to encourage conversations about more personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
After 45 minutes, the participants were given a series of questions that asked them to describe how close they felt to their partner on a scale of one to seven, which were then averaged to give a final score.
On this scale, people who had engaged in high self-disclosure rated their closeness at around four, while those shooting the breeze with small talk rated their closeness at around three. The finding is particularly notable when you compare the new friendships with their existing social circle, many of which only achieved similar levels of intimacy after many years of acquaintance.
"The subjects rated their relationships to their partners of less than an hour to be about as close as the average relationship in their lives, and in other people's lives," Aron and his colleagues concluded. An informal follow-up, after seven weeks, found that many remained in contact after the experiment.
In the original paper, Aron and his colleagues warned that the procedure should be treated with caution, and that people shouldn't assume that simply going through the questions would result in a lasting friendship.
The "fast-friends procedure" was born, and its effects on social connection have now been replicated in many other studies. Susan Sprecher at Illinois State University, for instance, recently tested the fast-friends procedure with more than 100 pairs of students, some of whom met for face-to-face conversations while others spoke online. "People felt closer when using the regardless of whether they were communicating over video or in person," she says.
The opioid effect
The effects can be seen within the body. The warm buzz we feel when connecting with others arises from our opioid system. It's the same part of the brain that responds to the drug morphine, but the brain also has its own supply of chemicals, known as endorphins, that dock into these receptors. When it is activated, the opioid system produces enjoyable feelings such as euphoria, as well as a sense of social connection and bonding. Studies on non-human animals suggest that social activities such as play and grooming can induce the release of these neurotransmitters, creating a feedback loop of growing attachment. And it seems that self-disclosure has the same effect.
When activated, the opioid system produces enjoyable feelings such as euphoria and can help with social bonding.
To explore that potential link between natural opioids, self-disclosure and social connection in humans, Kristina Tchalova at the University of Toronto, and Geoff MacDonald at McGill University first gave one group of participants a tablet of naltrexone, which prevents the brain's natural opioids from docking to their receptors. Another group were given a placebo. Both groups were then organized into pairs and put through the "fast-friendship procedure", asking each other questions from the list.
The closeness-building exercise did not work as well for the group whose opioid receptors were blocked. Compared to the people who had taken an inert placebo, the group receiving naltrexone found it harder to share their intimate feelings in the conversations, and did not enjoy the conversations nearly as much.
Such physiological pathways help to explain why it feels so good to have deep and meaningful conversations, which should in turn increase bonding over time.
Healing the divide
A handful of recent studies have explored whether the fast-friends conversations can increase connection among people from different social groups – and even work across physical separation.
For instance, team of researchers from the University of Hagen, a remote-learning university in Germany, studied whether the procedure could help students stick with their course – as distance education often struggles with high drop-out rates. The researchers gave an online version of the task to 855 remote learners enrolled in the undergraduate psychology degree.
As the researchers had hoped, the fast-friends procedure not only increased the feelings of social connection between the virtual classmates, but also resulted in more of the students continuing the course until the final exam, rather than dropping out. This greater sense of closeness between the students was found regardless of differences in demographic factors, such as age or immigration status.
Along similar lines, scientists at Stony Brook University in New York have shown that the procedure helps foster social connection between people of different sexual orientations. After going through the 36 self-disclosure questions with a gay or lesbian participant, straight people revealed less prejudiced attitudes on a survey, and greater feelings of closeness towards that person.
A major lesson of the fast-friends procedure may simply be that we can often afford to be a bit braver than we might assume. A recent study by Nicholas Epley at the University of Chicago and colleagues, for instance, found that people are generally reluctant to engage in self-disclosure since they assume the other person will not be interested in what they have to say. Those fears were mostly unfounded.
Making conversation
In her online classes, Sprecher often encourages her students to apply it with someone who is already in their life – "their mother, their roommate, their current boyfriend" – and then asks them to report back about how it went. "And that anecdotal evidence, too, indicates that people just enjoy doing it," she says. To some, it may indeed bring more luck in love. "I know a friend whose daughter did this on their first date. Now they're married," says Sprecher.
In everyday interactions, we might not want to rigidly stick to the specific questions – but instead, apply the principle of self-disclosure more generally, the researchers suggest.
"Keep in mind that it's not only about the parent asking questions, but also allowing your child to ask the questions, and you giving honest answers," Brummelman says. "Adopt a position of equality and trust, and don't be afraid to touch on things that might elicit negative emotions."
For those unsure how to strike the right balance between sharing, and over-sharing, the questions in Brummelman's and Aron's studies might however provide a helpful start – and perhaps, lead to a lifetime of better conversations, and closer bonds.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250911-the-shortcut-to-close-bonds-asking-meaningful-questions
*
THE SYMMETRY BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH HEMISPHERES APPEARS TO BE BREAKING
The Northern Hemisphere is absorbing more sunlight than the Southern Hemisphere, and clouds can no longer keep the balance.
Years ago, scientists noted something odd: Earth's Northern and Southern Hemispheres reflect nearly the same amount of sunlight back into space. The reason why this symmetry is odd is because the Northern Hemisphere has more land, cities, pollution, and industrial aerosols. All those things should lead to a higher albedo — more sunlight reflected than absorbed. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean, which is darker and absorbs more sunlight.
New satellite data, however, suggest that symmetry is breaking.
From balance to imbalance
In a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Norman Loeb, a climate scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, and colleagues analyzed 24 years of observations from NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) mission.
They found that the Northern Hemisphere is darkening faster than the Southern Hemisphere. In other words, it's absorbing more sunlight. That shift may alter weather patterns, rainfall, and the planet's overall climate in the decades ahead.
Since 2000, CERES has recorded how much sunlight is absorbed and reflected, as well as how much infrared (long-wave) radiation escapes back to space. Loeb used these measurements to analyze how Earth's energy balance changed between 2001 and 2024. The energy balance tells scientists whether the planet is absorbing more energy than it releases and how that difference varies between hemispheres.
"Any object in the universe has a way to maintain equilibrium by receiving energy and giving off energy. That's the fundamental law governing everything in the universe," said Zhanqing Li, a climate scientist at the University of Maryland who was not part of the study. "The Earth maintains equilibrium by exchanging energy between the Sun and the Earth's emitted longwave radiation."
The team found that the Northern Hemisphere is absorbing about 0.34 watt more solar energy per square meter per decade than the Southern Hemisphere. "This difference doesn't sound like much, but over the whole planet, that's a huge number," said Li.
To figure out what was driving this imbalance, the scientists applied a technique called partial radiative perturbation (PRP) analysis. The PRP method separates the influence of factors such as clouds, aerosols, surface brightness, and water vapor from calculations of how much sunlight each hemisphere absorbs.
The results pointed to three main reasons for the Northern Hemisphere darkening: melting snow and ice, declining air pollution, and rising water vapor.
"It made a lot of sense," Loeb said. "The Northern Hemisphere's surface is getting darker because snow and ice are melting. That exposes the land and ocean underneath. And pollution has gone down in places like China, the U.S., and Europe. It means there are fewer aerosols in the air to reflect sunlight. In the Southern Hemisphere, it's the opposite."
"Because the north is warming faster, it also holds more water vapor," Loeb continued. "Water vapor doesn't reflect sunlight, it absorbs it. That's another reason the Northern Hemisphere is taking in more heat."
Curiosity about cloud cover
One of the study's interesting findings is what didn't change over the past 20 years: cloud cover.
"The clouds are a puzzle to me because of this hemispheric symmetry," Loeb said. "We kind of questioned whether this was a fundamental property of the climate system. If it were, the clouds should compensate. You should see more cloud reflection in the Northern Hemisphere relative to the Southern Hemisphere, but we weren't seeing that."
Loeb worked with models to understand these clouds.
"We are unsure about the clouds," said Loeb.
"Understanding aerosol and cloud interactions is still a major challenge," agreed Li. "Clouds remain the dominant factor adjusting our energy balance," he said. "It's very important."
Still, Li said that "Dr. Norman Loeb's study shows that not only does [the asymmetry] exist, but it's important enough to worry about what's behind it."
Loeb is "excited about the new climate models coming out soon" and how they will further his work. "It'll be interesting to revisit this question with the latest and greatest models."
Khey:
I wonder if the influx of solar panels, especially the solar farms in North America and Asia have anything to do with it? If we're harvesting energy from the sun, wouldn't the converse be less reflected back?
David Austin:
Solar panels cover approximately 500 square miles, which is about 1/5000th of the US. That's like one square yard (about the amount covered by a standard kitchen oven) compared to the area of a football field. So it will have a negligible effect on the amount reflected back into space.
*
HIDDEN, SUPERCHARGED 'THERMOSTAT' MAY CAUSE EARTH TO OVERCORRECT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
Rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may trigger a series of geological and biological processes that could ensure the next ice age arrives on time instead of being delayed, researchers say.
The key to the new findings is how phosphorus moves from the land to the ocean, researchers said.
Earth may respond to the huge quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) that humans are pumping into the atmosphere by "overcorrecting" the imbalance, which could result in the next ice age arriving on time instead of being delayed by tens of thousands of years, as had previously been predicted.
This is due to a newfound "thermostat" that buries mountains of carbon beneath the seafloor so efficiently, it could do away with human carbon emissions within 100,000 years, researchers have discovered.
That's several times quicker than scientists assumed would happen with a previously described "lazy thermostat" that locks away carbon on timescales of 500,000 to 1 million years, the team reported in a study published Sept. 25 in the journal Science.
With both thermostats working in tandem, it's possible that the next ice age could start on time, instead of being delayed by the effects of climate change, study co-author Andy Ridgwell, a professor of geology at the University of California, Riverside, told Live Science.
The newfound thermostat does not protect humans living now from the effects of global warming, said study co-author Dominik Hülse, a mathematician and biogeochemical modeler at the University of Bremen in Germany. "It's not to say that we will be safe from global warming in the next 100 or even 1,000 years," he told Live Science.
Scientists have long suspected that Earth regulates its climate on geological timescales. Since the 1980s, researchers have theorized about a mechanism called the silicate weathering feedback, which occurs when rain captures CO2 from the air and sprays it onto silicate rocks — rocks with minerals made of oxygen and silicon that constitute about 90% of the planet's crust. CO2 reacts with these rocks, dissolving them and forming molecules that leach into the ground and eventually end up in the ocean. Once there, what was once CO2 forms limestone and chalk, meaning it is locked away for millions of years.
The silicate weathering feedback is like a thermostat because the more CO2 that is in the atmosphere, the warmer Earth gets and the more the water cycle intensifies. As precipitation increases, silicate weathering accelerates, meaning more CO2 is transferred to the ocean and atmospheric CO2 sinks to background levels again.
The feedback also works the other way around. "If you get too cold and CO2 is too low, then the thermostat is consuming too little CO2 compared with a background of constant release of CO2 from the mantle, from volcanoes and other magma features," Ridgwell said. In this scenario, less CO2 ends up in the ocean and atmospheric levels slowly increase back to average levels, he said.
But the silicate weathering feedback moves slowly; it can take up to 1 million years after a perturbation to rebalance CO2 levels. As a result, there are climate events it can't explain, including Earth's glacial and interglacial cycles, which are characterized by huge fluctuations in CO2 levels and temperature that occur roughly every 100,000 years, Ridgwell said.
Silicate weathering also can't explain snowball Earth events, which completely cover the planet in ice, Hülse said. If silicate weathering were the only thermostat regulating Earth's climate, its smooth balancing act would prevent it from tipping into such extreme conditions, Hülse explained.
A second "thermostat"
The new research was inspired by Hülse's doctoral dissertation, in which he calculated how much organic carbon was preserved in ocean sediments during past climatic events. His results showed that after periods of intense volcanic activity and warming, mountains of organic carbon were deposited onto the seafloor. This finding suggested there might be a link between atmospheric CO2 levels and organic carbon burial in the ocean.
"There are definitely times in Earth's history when a lot of organic carbon has been deposited," Ridgwell said. "We've sort of known that there must be other things going on [besides silicate weathering], but it's much more complex to put in a model."
But Hülse and Ridgwell tackled this challenge in the new study by amalgamating their individual projects into a single global climate carbon cycle model that accounted for organic carbon burial in the seafloor. Their results revealed a second "thermostat" rooted in Earth's phosphorus cycle, which starts on land with rocks containing minerals such as apatite, the researchers said.
Weathering of these rocks due to precipitation releases phosphorus, which leaches into the ground, enters streams and rivers, and eventually ends up in the ocean. There, phosphorus is a key nutrient for tiny photosynthetic creatures known as phytoplankton, which use it to fuel cellular processes. When phytoplankton die, they sink to the ocean bottom, where they deposit organic carbon, phosphorus and other nutrients.
Phytoplankton take up phosphorus to power cellular processes, and when they die, they bring it with them to the seafloor.
In a warmer world, more phosphorus is washed into the ocean and phytoplankton proliferate, meaning more organic carbon and phosphorus reach the seafloor. However, warmer oceans also hold less oxygen because oxygen becomes less soluble as temperatures increase. This deoxygenation releases deposited phosphorus back into the water column while burying organic carbon in sediments.
"Exactly how that happens is not mechanistically entirely known, but we know it happens," Ridgwell said. "Where we've had these events in the past where we see massive amounts of organic carbon being buried after a warming event, there's very, very, very little phosphorus in that material compared with normal material. If it's not being buried, it must have been returned to the ocean."
As phosphorus gets recycled, it reenters the food chain and phytoplankton continue to proliferate as they feast on phosphorus from both the land and the ocean. This leads to a phytoplankton boom, which sucks more and more CO2 out of the atmosphere and deposits more and more organic carbon onto the seafloor, which brings down global temperatures.
So, the warmer the world gets, the more productive the oceans become and the more carbon is locked away, which cools the climate. But the difference between phosphorus and silicate weathering is that phosphorus in the ocean doesn't decline as soon as Earth cools, because it continues to be released at the seafloor.
"The organic carbon thermostat is a little bit like the silicate thermostat, except it has this supercharger," Ridgwell said. "You end up with so many nutrients in the ocean — and they're being recycled very efficiently — that it's very difficult to get rid of them again.”
The phosphorus cycle eventually regains its balance, but the planet can "overcorrect" in the meantime, triggering events like snowball Earth, the researchers said. It's unclear how this second thermostat will respond to climate change now, but the ocean is so rich in oxygen compared with in the past that a snowball Earth is unlikely, they said.
Instead, it's possible that the organic carbon thermostat will make up for the delay expected for the next ice age. Climate change is disturbing Earth's natural cycles, and previous research suggests it could push back the next glacial period, which is due in about 11,000 years, by tens of thousands of years. But if the organic carbon thermostat activates, atmospheric CO2 could return to background levels much faster, ensuring that the next ice age arrives on time.
"Whatever delay we'll end up with for the next ice age ... thinking about this mechanism might bring it back forward again," Ridgwell said. "One is going to start at some point for sure; it's all about when it starts."
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/hidden-supercharged-thermostat-may-cause-earth-to-overcorrect-for-climate-change
TITAN, THE LARGEST MOON OF SATURN
This isn’t a blurred image of the Earth.
What you’re seeing is the largest moon of Saturn, Titan.
Titan is also the only moon in the solar system to have an atmosphere. The atmosphere rises up to a staggering 600 km— 6 times that of Earth’s!
The blur occurs due to this thick atmosphere.
Those dark patches on its surface aren't craters like our Moon’s, they're oceans.
Oceans of liquid methane.
A frigid place. The surface temperature is around -180°C, cold enough for the usual methane gas to become liquid!
And not only oceans…it also has rivers, lakes and seas. All made up of methane. Or rather, a mixture of methane and ethane.
Ligeia Mare, a liquid methane lake on Titan
Clouds, haze and rain… a methane cycle (similar to Earth’s water cycle). And sand dunes, mountains, valleys, and volcanoes.
Titan’s surface temperature is -180°C, but it isn't a ball of ice.
The inside of Titan is very hot, like any other planets or moons.
The internal heat of Titan is mostly generated by radioactive decay of unstable isotopes of uranium and potassium.
Moreover, the tidal forces of Saturn’s gravity churn the content inside, generating heat by friction.
When the slushy mix of water, ammonia and methane is heated by this heat, it expands and rises up, finally getting vomited by a cryovolcano.
What's interesting about this place is that it's bizarre & uncanny…but also somewhat familiar at the same time. Imagine yourself as a future astronaut exploring its surface, you’ll get the point.
Space isn't just “out there”, it is full of mysterious places waiting to be explored...who knows what we’ll find? ~ Prathmesh, Quora
*
TROPONIN AND DEMENTIA
A new study recently published in the European Heart Journal adds to what we know about the link between heart health and dementia risk by reporting that people with signs of heart damage during middle age — detected through a specific protein — are at a higher risk of developing dementia later in life.
For this study, researchers analyzed health data from approximately 6,000 participants in the Whitehall II study, which began in 1985 and has been following study participants for over 35 years.
All study participants were between the ages of 45 and 69 when they were given a test to measure the amount of cardiac troponin I in their blood. Troponin is a type of protein found in heart muscle cells that is released into the bloodstream when the heart experiences any sort of damage. This allows the protein to be used as a biomarker for detecting a heart attack, myocarditis, pericarditis, or other heart muscle issues.
None of the study participants had a diagnosis of dementia or cardiovascular disease when they had their first blood test to detect levels of troponin. Participants were followed for a median of 25 years, completing various tests along the way.
At the study’s conclusion, researchers found that participants who had developed dementia had consistently higher levels of troponin in their blood, and those with the highest troponin levels increased their dementia risk by 38% compared to participants with the lowest troponin levels.
Additionally, scientists discovered that study participants with high levels of troponin between the ages of 45 and 69 experienced a quicker decline in their memory, thinking, and problem-solving abilities. These participants also tended to have a smaller hippocampus and lower gray matter brain volume, both of which are signs of dementia.
“Poor heart health in middle age puts people at increased risk of dementia in later life,” Eric Brunner, PhD, professor of social and biological epidemiology in the Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care at University College London, and senior author of this study, says in a press release.
“Damage to the brain seen in people with dementia accumulates slowly over the decades before symptoms develop. Control of risk factors common to both heart disease, stroke, and dementia in middle age, such as high blood pressure, may slow or even stop the development of dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.
We now need to carry out studies to investigate how well troponin levels in the blood can predict future dementia risk. Our early results suggest that troponin could become an important component of a risk score to predict future probability of dementia,” according to Brunner.
Medical News Today spoke with Cheng-Han Chen, MD, a board certified interventional cardiologist and medical director of the Structural Heart Program at MemorialCare Saddleback Medical Center in Laguna Hills, CA, about this study. Cheng-Han Chen said:
“This study found that people with higher levels of cardiac troponin — a marker of possible heart damage — in the blood were more likely to develop dementia many years in the future. While the exact nature of the cause-and-effect is not entirely clear, the findings illustrate the close relationship between heart health and brain health and suggest that the same risk factors may underlie both problems.”
“Cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease are two of the most serious medical problems that our society faces,” Chen continued. “Understanding the possible connections between these conditions can potentially help us better treat — and possibly prevent — these conditions. Future research can examine possible mechanisms by which elevated troponin levels lead to future dementia.”
MNT also spoke with Shadi Yaghi, MD, FAHA, chair of neurology at Hackensack Meridian Neuroscience Institute at Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey, about this research, who commented that this is a terrific study highlighting a strong link between cardiovascular health and brain health.
Shadu Yaghi said, “Damage to the heart can, in turn, cause damage to the brain, and the factors that cause damage to the heart, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, unhealthy diet patterns, and lack of physical activity, also cause damage to the brain. It is important to better understand the link between the two to try to prevent heart damage to optimize brain health and lower the chances of dementia.”
When asked what he would like to see as the next steps for this research, Yaghi commented he would like to see “whether specific treatments that preserve cardiovascular health can help lower risk of dementia.”
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/high-levels-troponin-heart-damage-biomarker-middle-age-increased-dementia-risk#Understanding-the-link-betwwen-heart-and-brain-health
*
TROPONIN, AN IMPORTANT BIOMARKER PROTEIN
Troponin refers to three different proteins that help regulate the contractions of the heart and skeletal muscles. Normal troponin levels range from 0 to 0.04 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml).
The three proteins are troponin C, troponin I, and troponin T. Troponin C binds calcium, changing its shape and allowing troponin I to aid in muscle contraction. Troponin T binds troponin proteins to muscle fibers.
The heart releases troponin I and troponin T into the blood following an injury, such as a heart attack. High troponin levels usually mean a person has recently had a heart attack. The medical term for this attack is myocardial infarction.
Troponin levels are usually so low that standard blood tests cannot detect them. Even small increases in troponin can indicate some damage to the heart.
Significantly raised troponin levels, particularly those that rise and fall over a series of hours, are a strong indication of a heart injury.
Elevated troponin levels can occur as a result of both cardiac and noncardiac conditions.
Possible causes include:
intensive strength training
sepsis, which is a severe and potentially life threatening reaction to an infection entering the bloodstream
kidney failure or chronic kidney disease
heart failure
chemotherapy-related damage to the heart
pulmonary embolism
heart infection
myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart
heart damage from using recreational drugs, such as cocaine
a traumatic injury to the heart, such as from a sudden, hard blow to the chest
Treatment for high troponin levels
High troponin levels are a symptom, not a diagnosis, so treatment will focus on finding and addressing the underlying cause.
Very high levels of troponin usually indicate that a person has recently had a heart attack. The treatment for a heart attack depends on whether the blockage preventing blood flow to the heart is partial or complete.
Some common treatments following a heart attack include:
clot-dissolving medications
coronary angioplasty, which is a procedure that involves threading a small balloon into the coronary artery
the insertion of a wire mesh tube to prop open a blocked blood vessel during an angioplasty
bypass surgery, which involves a surgeon creating new pathways for blood to travel through to the heart muscle
A reading that exceeds 0.04 ng/ml is considered a high troponin level. Very high levels of troponin indicate a heart attack. Exact measurements vary between laboratories but, in general, a troponin level of 0.40 ng/ml or more can indicate a heart attack.
High troponin levels can indicate both cardiac and noncardiac conditions such as heart attack, heart infection, sepsis, and kidney failure.
It is possible for a person to have normal troponin levels but have chest pain. In this case, it is likely that their heart has not been damaged.
After troponin levels have reached their peak, they will return to normal. Typically, this return to normal troponin levels occurs over 4 to 10 days.
Levels higher than 0.04 ng/ml typically indicate damage to the heart or other conditions, such as kidney disease or intense physical exercise. Levels of 0.40 ng/ml indicate a probable heart attack.
Usually, doctors order troponin testing if they suspect that a person has had a recent heart attack or want to rule it out in support of another diagnosis.
If a heart attack is responsible for the high levels of troponin, treatment may involve emergency procedures to open a blocked artery.
Following a heart attack, troponin levels will return to normal. This usually occurs over 4 to 10 days.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325415#summary
*
Changes in gut bacteria may be a warning sign of heart disease
Experts are interested in how microorganisms in the gut impact heart health.
A recent study has identified possible bacterial species associated with coronary artery disease, as well as critical metabolic pathways, metabolic products, genes, and functional differences of specific bacteria.
This research could pave the way towards using gut-related strategies to address coronary artery disease.
Coronary artery disease is a common type of heart disease that involves plaque buildup in the heart’s arteries.
Research is ongoing about the possible factors involved, including how the microorganisms in the gut may play a role.
A study recently published in mSystems examined stool samples from healthy controls and people with coronary artery disease and identified distinct differences.
The results found that the consideration of gut bacteria and their metabolites may help with identifying risk for coronary artery disease.
The findings also offer more insight into how gut bacteria may affect coronary artery disease, which could lead to cardiovascular disease treatments focusing on this relationship.
In the current study, researchers sought to examine the relationship between gut microorganisms, functional pathways, and coronary artery disease.
They selected participants from the Kangbuk Samsung Cohort Study. They excluded participants with certain risk factors, such as cancer history or recent use of antibiotics.
They chose 14 individuals with coronary artery disease and 28 controls, collecting fecal samples from each. Three participants were female, and the average age of the participants was of around 53.
Researchers identified 520 bacterial species when looking at data from all participants. While bacterial diversity was similar for both groups, researchers did find 15 bacterial species where the amounts present were vastly different between the two groups.
Seven bacterial species were greatly increased in the coronary artery disease group, and eight species were depleted compared with healthy controls.
The authors suggest that one of the shifts that might happen in people with coronary artery disease is an increase in some bacteria and fewer amounts of bacterial species that make short-chain fatty acids.
The data also found differences in several metabolic pathways between the two groups. Some pathways were enriched, while others were depleted.
The specific bacteria contributing to these pathways differed. There were also differences in amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism in the coronary artery disease group compared to controls.
“People with [coronary artery disease] had markedly fewer protective microbes that produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) — molecules that help reduce inflammation and support vascular health. In contrast, we observed higher activity in microbial metabolic pathways such as the urea cycle and L-citrulline biosynthesis, which are related to inflammation and cardiovascular stress. These functional changes suggest a shift from a balanced to a pro-inflammatory gut environment.”
Researchers also identified certain metabolites, which are components produced or used in metabolism, that differed among the two groups.
One metabolite, inosine, was greatly increased among participants with coronary artery disease, while two others were significantly lower in this group.
Good bacteria turn bad in coronary heart disease
“Even microbes traditionally considered beneficial, such as Akkermansia or Faecalibacterium, showed strain-level differences: Some carried genetic traits related to inflammation or trimethylamine (TMA) production, a compound associated with atherosclerosis,” the researchers detailed.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/changes-in-gut-bacteria-may-be-a-warning-sign-of-heart-disease#Key-findings-about-heart-health-and-inflammation
*
FOODS THAT CAN KEEP YOU AWAKE
Aside from caffeine, several other foods and food types may keep people awake and stop them from having good quality, restful sleep.
While other health conditions and lifestyle factors can lead to insomnia and difficulty sleeping, the food a person eats can also strongly influence sleep quality.
Caffeine
Caffeine prolongs the time it takes to fall asleep, reduces total sleep time, and worsens sleep quality. Additionally, the substance increases wakefulness and arousal. Some individuals are also more sensitive to caffeine’s effects due to genetic differences, with older adults being more prone than younger adults.
Alcohol
Although alcohol is a depressant, it does not promote restful sleep. Although some people may fall asleep quickly after consuming alcohol, they often find themselves waking up earlier than usual and struggling to go back to sleep.
A review of studies in 517 healthy adults confirmed the negative effects of alcohol on sleep. It found that although alcohol may reduce the time a person needs to fall asleep, it significantly disrupts rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, particularly in the second half of sleep. People require quality REM sleep for sufficient rest.
Spicy Foods
Spicy foods may negatively affect sleep in several ways. They can cause indigestion, acid reflux, and heartburn, making it uncomfortable to lie down. Additionally, acid reflux can worsen sleep apnea. These foods also raise body temperature, making it difficult to get cool enough to fall asleep comfortably.
The tolerance for heat from chili peppers, within in many spicy foods, and its effects on the body, varies from individual to individual. For those people who find that consuming spicy foods negatively affects sleep, it may be best to avoid eating them in the hours before bedtime.
Foods that cause a spike in blood sugar, such as white rice, potatoes, candy, and other sugary foods, are called high glycemic (GI) foods.
Consuming these foods causes blood sugar to rise rapidly, resulting in the release of insulin, which affects tryptophan and serotonin levels. There is also a complex interaction of insulin with adrenaline, cortisol, glucagon, and growth hormone, all of which can negatively impact sleep.
Eating too many of these foods can contribute to insomnia. It can also increase inflammation in the body and alter intestinal bacteria. Eating too many of these foods can also increase inflammation in the body and alter gut bacteria. Additionally, a large 2020 study found a link between intake of high GI foods and insomnia in postmenopausal women across a 3-year period.
Fatty foods
Consuming high fat content foods, such as fatty meats and desserts, may also disrupt sleep.
The body’s digestion naturally slows when a person goes to sleep. Fatty foods will cause the stomach to feel full and may make it difficult for individuals to feel comfortable. They can also cause indigestion and acid reflux, which are also likely to result in poor sleep quality.
In a study of 440 medical students, higher fat intake had links to shorter total sleep time, less restorative sleep, and more sleep disruption. Another smaller 2016 study in 26 healthy adults also found that consuming a diet high in saturated fat had associations with lighter, less restorative sleep.
A much larger cohort study in men found an association between higher levels of trans-fats and probable insomnia.
Processed foods
While convenient, these foods contain many of the nutritional components above, including sugars and fats, which negatively impact sleep.
In a 2020 study of approximately 2,500 young adults, researchers found that higher consumption of processed foods shares significant links with poor sleep quality.
Additionally, 2018 study found that highly processed foods cause shorter duration of sleep and poor sleep quality in children aged 12–18 years.
Being aware of these types of foods and avoiding them close to bedtime can improve the chances of good sleep.
*
FOODS THAT PROMOTE GOOD SLEEP
Taking both traditional knowledge and scientific research into account, as well as nutritional profiles, here are the best foods and drinks for sleep:
Almonds contain high doses of melatonin, a hormone that helps regulate the sleeping and waking cycle.
A 1-ounce (oz) serving of whole almonds also contains 77 milligrams (mg) of magnesium and 76 mg of calcium, two minerals that may help promote muscle relaxation and sleep.
Warm milk is a common home remedy for sleeplessness. Milk contains four sleep-promoting compounds: tryptophan, calcium, vitamin D, and melatonin.
However, the childhood association that many people have between a warm cup of milk and bedtime may be more effective than tryptophan or melatonin in promoting sleep. Like a cup of tea, having a warm cup of milk before bed can be a relaxing nightly ritual.
Kiwifruit
Some research has looked at the link between kiwi consumption and sleep. In one small study, people who ate two kiwifruits 1 hour before bedtime for 4 weeks experienced improved total sleep time and sleep efficiency and also took less time to fall asleep.
If kiwi is beneficial for sleep, this may be because the fruit contains many sleep-promoting compounds, including:
melatonin
anthocyanins
flavonoids
carotenoids
potassium
magnesium
folate
calcium
Chamomile tea
The herb chamomile is a traditional remedy for insomnia.
Researchers think that a flavonoid compound called apigenin is responsible for chamomile’s sleep-inducing properties.
Apigenin seems to activate GABA A receptors, a process that helps stimulate sleep.
Although research has found only weak evidence that chamomile may improve sleep quality, having a warm cup of tea can be a soothing ritual to help a person mentally prepare for bed.
Walnuts
Walnuts contain a few compounds that promote and regulate sleep, including melatonin, serotonin, and magnesium. Each 100-g serving of walnuts also contains other nutrients that can help sleep, such as:
158 mg of magnesium
441 mg of potassium
98 micrograms (µg) of folate
98 mg of calcium
Walnuts are high in melatonin, but researchers have not yet proven a solid association between eating these nuts and improved sleep.
Tart cherries
Cherries are rich in four different sleep-regulating compounds: melatonin, tryptophan, potassium, and serotonin. Researchers speculate that antioxidants called polyphenols in tart cherries may also influence sleep regulation.
The researchers also concluded that the anti-inflammatory properties of cherries might help reduce pain after strenuous exercise and improve cognitive function.
Fatty fish
Fatty fish may help improve sleep because they are a good source of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids, two nutrients that help regulate serotonin. Serotonin is largely responsible for establishing a fixed sleeping and waking cycle.
Fatty fish are typically also high in a few other sleep-promoting nutrients. For example, a 3-oz fillet of wild Atlantic salmon contains
416 mg of potassium
25 g of magnesium
170 mg of phosphorous
0.54 mg of zinc
2.7 µg of vitamin B-12
21 µg of folate
10 mg of calcium
In a 2014 study, participants who ate 300 g of Atlantic salmon three times a week for 6 months fell asleep more quickly and functioned better during the day than those who ate chicken, beef, or pork with the same nutritional value.
The researchers concluded that these benefits were primarily due to an increase in vitamin D levels, as well as possible improvements in heart-rate regulation due to the omega-3 content.
Barley grass powder
Barley grass powder is rich in several sleep-promoting compounds, including GABA, calcium, tryptophan, zinc, potassium, and magnesium.
According to a 2018 review, barley grass powder may promote sleep and help prevent a range of other conditions.
Lettuce
Lettuce and lettuce seed oil may help treat insomnia and promote a good night’s sleep. Some people claim that lettuce has a mild sedative-hypnotic effect.
Researchers believe that most of lettuce’s sedative effects are due to the plant’s n-butanol fraction, specifically in a compound called lactucin.
Other natural remedies
Aside from foods, other traditional or alternative remedies that can improve sleep include:
valerian
St. John’s wort
passionflower tea
kava
Some lifestyle and diet choices can also help improve sleep and a person’s sleep cycle. These include:
avoiding foods that can cause heartburn, such as spicy or rich foods
avoiding foods and drinks that contain caffeine close to bedtime
choosing whole-grain foods in place of white bread, white pasta, and sugary foods
avoiding skipping meals
staying hydrated
exercising regularly
finishing eating more than 2–3 hours before bedtime
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324295#summary
Oriana:
Since marijuana is legal in California, I use special sleep gummies containing CBN, CBD, and THC. Half a gummy is enough for me, which helps with the cost (due mostly to high taxes). CBD oil is another sleep aid that is also an analgesic.
In the past, I found valerian to be helpful if taken now and then. If it’s taken every day, the effectiveness wears off quickly — or at least that has been my experience. Valerian seems to be like sleeping pills — a miracle at first, less effective two weeks later, and completely ineffective over time with regular use (again: in my experience).
Exercise (or sufficient physical activity) and positive emotions are more helpful than any special foods and potions.
I once knew an older woman whose favorite bedtime drink was caffeinated black coffee. She said she slept just fine. Some lucky people are great sleepers no matter what. I guess it’s genetic.
*
NIKOLA TESLA’S SECRETS OF LONGEVITY
Amidst the relentless pursuit of longevity, one man stands out for merging cutting-edge ideas with the age-old quest for the fountain of youth: Bryan Johnson.
The millionaire software entrepreneur has garnered attention for his extreme measures to increase his lifespan, spending about $2 million a year trying to make his 46-year-old body look and function as though it were 18 again. Johnson has transformed his anti-aging efforts into “Project Blueprint,” a subscription-based program that, according to the New York Post, costs $333 a month for those seeking their own path to youthfulness.
Of course, this portion of Johnson’s health protocol focuses on nutrition and supplements, like his “$99 ready-to-mix blend of nuts, seeds and berries to make Nutty Pudding,” rather than, say, his reliance on inter-generational blood transfusions. But even these supplements are controversial, with longevity expert Dr. Andrew Steele, the author of Ageless: The New Science of Getting Older Without Getting Old, noting that some of the ingredients could “increase risk of death.”
While the secret to immortality remains unsolved, that hasn’t stopped Johnson and other modern longevity experts—authors, geneticists, doctors-turned-podcasters—from providing guidance on how to add years to your life. But long before any of those gurus were even born, a world-famous scientist developed his own longevity protocol that helped him beat the odds and outlive the life expectancy of his time by more than 20 years: Nikola Tesla.
The (Delayed) Death of Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla didn’t live forever. The inventor died under-appreciated, alone, and in poverty on January 7, 1943, from a coronary thrombosis, according to Biography.
Nikola Tesla in his laboratory, 1910
At the time of Tesla’s death, his Wardenclyffe laboratory on Long Island had been foreclosed for nearly 30 years. He lived in the Hotel New Yorker in Manhattan, where his behavior became “increasingly eccentric.” Though he reportedly spent “much of his time to the care of wild pigeons in the parks of New York City,” Tesla also tried to develop a “death ray” at the encouragement of the Soviet Union, which naturally drew the attention of the FBI.
But while the idea of a great mind squandered on feeding birds and fueling a war machine reads as tragic, there’s a remarkable element to the circumstances of Tesla’s death. Namely, his age.
Nikola Tesla died at 86 years old, a notably ripe old age compared to 1943’s average American life expectancy of just 62.4 years. Even considering the life expectancy in his original homeland, now known as Croatia, which was around 65 years as late as 1960, Tesla’s longevity was quite an achievement.
The Foundational Years of Nikola Tesla
Considering Tesla’s early years in the village of Smiljan were filled with death (including that of his older brother, Dane, when Nikola was only 5), military conscription, and disease, it would be impressive had Tesla even reached the average age at which a man of his time had died. Yet, it was these early brushes with death that spurred Tesla’s determination to tackle aging with the same methodical approach he applied to his scientific inventions.
As Biography notes, Nikola’s father, Milutin Tesla, was a Serbian orthodox priest who strongly urged his son to follow in his footsteps. However, this pressure only drove Nikola to seek answers beyond the Bible. And at least once, that pursuit of knowledge came at great personal cost.
In a portion of Nikola’s autobiography, My Inventions, Tesla describes a confluence of his scientific curiosity and innate desire to defy his parochial patriarch:
“Just as I was making ready for the long journey home I received word that my father wished me to go on a shooting expedition. It was a strange request as he had been always strenuously opposed to this kind of sport. But a few days later I learned that the cholera was raging in that district and, taking advantage of an opportunity, I returned to Gospic in disregard of my parents' wishes. It is incredible how absolutely ignorant people were as to the causes of this scourge which visited the country in intervals of from fifteen to twenty years. They thought that the deadly agents were transmitted thru the air and filled it with pungent odors and smoke. In the meantime they drank the infected water and died in heaps.”
Tesla “contracted the awful disease” on the very day he arrived home, and it rendered him bedridden for nine months. But while he was sick, he cleverly capitalized on his father’s worry to steer his future toward his true passion. Lying ill, he suggested to Milutin that his recovery hinged on being allowed to pursue engineering. Reflecting on this moment, Tesla recalls in his memoirs his father’s grave promise: “You will go to the best technical institution in the world.”
Tesla lecturing in Paris before the French Physical Society and the International Society of Electricians.
Indeed, the young Tesla attended several prestigious technical institutions, including the Realschule in Karlstadt, Germany; the Polytechnic Institute in Graz, Austria; and the University of Prague. He initially moved to Budapest, but after his ideas, like the induction motor, didn’t catch on, he relocated to the United States. It was there that he invented a slew of technologies, such as “radar technology, X-ray technology, remote control and the rotating magnetic field.”
Tesla’s early illness also sparked another passion: understanding and maintaining his own body as if it were one of 6gbhis intricate machines. As he told writer George F. Corners in a 1935 interview for Physical Culture magazine, “I look upon the human body as a machine, and I treat it with the respect which a machine deserves. I keep it properly oiled and properly cleaned, and I see to it that it has no opportunity to gather rust.”
That 1935 interview provides the most detailed view into the health habits and strategies that contributed to Nikola Tesla living more than 20 years longer than his contemporaries.
How Nikola Tesla Tried to Live Forever
In March 1935, Physical Culture ran a feature titled, “NIKOLA TESLA’S YOUTH AND STRENGTH AT 78.” Eight years before his death, Tesla told his interviewer, “Lacking but two years of eighty, I am as fit today as I was at twenty.”
Physical Culture was founded by a man named Bernarr Macfadden, who was, in a sense, America’s first fitness influencer. He promoted his health philosophies, emphasizing diet and physical activity, along with unconventional practices such as fasting and non-procreative sexual activity.
Physical Culture magazines covers, and magazine founder Bernarr Macfadden in 1923.
Macfadden’s “healthatoriums” gained popularity in the U.S., promoting exercise to the public. However, his more ambitious projects—establishing a “Physical Culture City” in New Jersey and trying to start a fitness-based religion called “Cosmotarianism”—later relegated him to the margins of American health history.
Macfadden launched Physical Culture in 1899, the same year Tesla published one of his own theories on health: “High Frequency Oscillators for Electro-Therapeutic and Other Purposes.” Was it destiny that brought the prolific inventor and the fitness publication together? Or was Physical Culture simply the only journal willing to document the eccentricities of a distinguished man who had become fixated on caring for New York’s pigeons?
Regardless of the cause, this obscure interview from Tesla’s final years reveals that certain aspects of his wellness regimen align with contemporary longevity strategies, while others might be more suitably consigned to the annals of vintage periodicals.
Nikola Tesla’s Longevity Secret #1: Eat Two Meals a Day
“The physical law which divides twenty-four hours into day and night also divides man’s life into two periods—one in which he lives and another in which he rests,” Tesla told Corners. “This in itself seems to indicate the desirability of two meals a day in unison with the world rhythm—one meal to give us energy for the day’s work, another to supply the body with the material with which it will replenish itself during sleep.”
Tesla insists he had “...tried everything—six meals a day, like most Europeans; three a day, one a day; I have tried continuous feeding.” Ultimately, “I decided that two meals are most beneficial.”
When Corners inquired about the timing of Tesla’s meals according to his “gastro-culinary scheme of existence,” Tesla responded:
“We should take breakfast two hours before we start to work, and we should rest two hours afterward. If a man has his breakfast between seven and eight, he should begin work at ten, work continuously for five or six hours, which would mean that his work day ended at three or four; then he should go home, and devote several hours to recreation, rest and exercise, and take his final meal between seven and eight at night.”
While modern longevity specialists may not dismiss lunch as “futile in the economy of the human body” as Tesla did, his approach does appear to echo today’s concept of intermittent fasting, with its emphasis on time-restricted eating.
Though research touts potential advantages of intermittent fasting, there are also documented risks and drawbacks. As Peter Attia suggests in Outlive: The Science of Art and Longevity, “One not uncommon scenario that we see with [time restricted eating] is that a person loses weight on the scale, but their body composition alters for the worse: they lose lean mass (muscle) while their body fat stays the same or even increases.”
Nikola Tesla’s Longevity Secret #2: Eat Plenty of Protein and Fat
“Every meal should have some protein and fat,” Tesla suggested in Physical Culture. “The one for building, the other for burning. Protein builds, fat is a fuel.”
Tesla wasn’t much of a carnivore, insisting, “I eat meat only at rare intervals, possibly only once or twice a year.” Instead, he turned to legumes (“A large amount of protein is contained in pulses or leguminous products, beans, peas, lentils, etc.”), vegetables (“Vegetables are indispensable to any diet”), and fruits (“Fruit, too, is an essential part of any well-regulated diet”).
That lines up with a 2022 study from the University of Borgen, which says, “...the optimal diet is one of legumes, whole grains, nuts, vegetables, and fruit.”
Tesla’s food choices got even more granular. “Another excellent ingredient for food is the white of an egg,” Tesla said, anticipating the “no-yolk” trend by several decades. “The yolk contains iron and vitamins which are good, but also uric acid, which I avoid as much as possible.” [Oriana: Uric acid in food is a problem only for people prone to gout and kidney stones. Yolk is super-nutritious.]
Uric acid is also a powerful antioxidant. One of my biology professors regarded naturally higher levels of uric acid as one of the main reasons that humans as a species lived much longer that could be expected based on our unimpressive size. Great apes (hominoids), which include gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, also have relatively high levels of uric acid.
Dr.Perlmutter, however, sees uric acid as primarily dangerous:
Tesla even anticipated our current dairy vs. non-dairy milk debate, while throwing some shade at a fellow industrialist:
“I believe with Bernarr Macfadden in the miracle of milk. There are two hundred and sixty grains of protein in one pint of milk. It is easily assimilated. Mr. [Henry] Ford, unlike Mr. Macfadden, does not believe in milk. He feels it should be artificially manufactured. Unlike Ford, I believe in milk. Ford should take to milk if he wants to turn out more millions of his ‘Lizzies.'”
Nikola Tesla’s Longevity Secret #3: Walk 10 Miles Every Day
“The most stimulating activity, to my mind, is walking,” Tesla proclaimed. “I walk never less than ten miles a day. This has kept me in good health, but it may in the end lead to my destruction, because I am a confirmed jay-walker.” (Interestingly, jaywalking had only recently been deemed illegal when Tesla mentioned it.)
Research supports the health benefits of walking. A study from the Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open says people who walked 8,000 or more steps at least once a week had a lower risk of death over the span of a decade compared to those who walked less. But 10 miles a day is excessive, the study suggests, because the “...protective effect of 8,000 daily steps plateaued at three days a week.”
Nikola Tesla’s Longevity Secret #4: No Cigarettes, Coffee, or Sex
Tesla was a man of few vices, purposefully quitting, or entirely abstaining from, anything he thought detrimental to his health. For example, Tesla told his interviewer that he was “strongly addicted to coffee” to the degree that “my heart was subjected to a dangerous over-strain.” So, he cut it out, calling caffeinated drinks “rank poisons.”
Tesla shared comparable thoughts on smoking, recalling, “I did smoke quite a bit, but around the age of twenty, I pledged to quit and indeed, that was the last cigar I had.”
Tesla’s discipline wasn’t limited to just coffee and cigarettes. As a bachelor, unlike contemporaries Thomas Edison and Guglielmo Marconi, he faced questions about his celibacy. While acknowledging the significance of sex in human life, Tesla said he preferred to be “wedded to science.”
“Before I produced the rotating magnetic field, I concentrated all my powers upon my experiment. The strain would have killed a hundred oxen. I certainly could not have survived it if I had permitted my energies to be diverted into the channels of sex.”
Tesla also gave up alcohol, but only because of the Eighteenth Amendment: “Since prohibition was enacted, I have not touched a drop,” Tesla said.
Surprisingly, Tesla actually felt booze was beneficial to him. “Alcohol has helped me a great deal in my life,” he claimed, even suggesting his sobriety was shortening his lifespan. “I had previously expected to live 150 years,” he told Physical Culture. “Now that I have given up alcohol, I have reduced my expectancy of life to 135 years.” [Tesla died at 86.]
Avoiding tobacco has obviously proven to be the right call, as you won’t find many doctors telling you to start smoking for your health (but that wasn’t always the case).
Regarding celibacy, research indicates Tesla may have needed to go a bit farther in his commitment to the cause, as studies suggest eunuchs generally live longer. According to Richard Munson’s biography, Tesla: Inventor of the Modern, Tesla’s avoidance of sexual activity was likely more about his fear of disease, influenced by the cholera epidemics he experienced, rather than a focus on his work.
And if you’re choosing between whether to drink a coffee or a beer, don’t base your decision on what Tesla would do. A 2018 study in JAMA Internal Medicine indicates coffee consumption “was associated inversely with all-cause mortality, including in those drinking at least 8 cups per day.”
As for booze’s health benefits, some studies tout its virtues. But in a GQ lifestyle interview reminiscent of Tesla’s 1935 interview, David Sinclair, a Harvard longevity expert, offered a dose of reality. Once a proponent of a diet rich in red wine and cheese, Sinclair has now abandoned alcohol altogether, citing new research showing that even moderate consumption can impact brain health.
And if you’re choosing between whether to drink a coffee or a beer, don’t base your decision on what Tesla would do. A 2018 study in JAMA Internal Medicine indicates coffee consumption “was associated inversely with all-cause mortality, including in those drinking at least 8 cups per day.”
As for booze’s health benefits, some studies tout its virtues. But in a GQ lifestyle interview reminiscent of Tesla’s 1935 interview, David Sinclair, a Harvard longevity expert, offered a dose of reality. Once a proponent of a diet rich in red wine and cheese, Sinclair has now abandoned alcohol altogether, citing new research showing that even moderate consumption can impact brain health.
Nikola Tesla’s Longevity Secret #5: Bathe in Electricity
When you think of Nikola Tesla, you think of electricity. And so did his interviewer. “It seems curious,” Corners asked Tesla, “that you, who are one of the master minds in electricity, do not use it to recharge your own energies.”
Nikola Tesla sitting in his Colorado Springs laboratory with his "magnifying transmitter.”
And that’s what prompted Tesla to reveal his most unique longevity strategy: “waterless baths.”
“I believe in what may be called a waterless bath, by which I mean charging of the body to a very high electric potential. It is a bath of fire that rebuilds, rejuvenates, cleans, and exhilarates. It carries off instantly all dust, impurities and microbes, and stimulates the tips of the nerves. While in the bath the body is surrounded by a halo of light, plainly visible in the dark. I am now working on an apparatus which will make this electric bath safe and economically possible, even for a person of average means.”
Intentionally subjecting yourself to an electric shock, whether in a bathtub or any other setting, based on the claim of an inventor from 90 years ago—who met his end, by the way, in a hotel room while attempting to construct a death ray—that it would eliminate dust is an extremely unwise action, and we *strongly* advise against it.
Want to live forever? Then sure, feel free to consider other guidance offered by Nikola Tesla, such as enjoying a stroll, moderating your snack intake, or even embracing celibacy if you choose. Just keep the wires out of the bathtub, okay?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a46414420/nikola-tesla-longevity-secrets-revealed/
*
6 Foods That Rival Blueberries in Antioxidant Power
Blueberries are the crowned hero when it comes to fighting free radicals (molecules that can damage DNA cells), and they do pack a lot of antioxidants. According to the Cleveland Clinic, a cup of blueberries has 24% of your daily vitamin C needs, 36% vitamin K, and 25% manganese. Plus, they’re high in fiber and water—a superstar choice for an antioxidant boost. That said, there are other foods out there that rival or beat blueberries when it comes to antioxidant prowess.
Pecans
Believe it or not, pecans rank even higher than blueberries in antioxidant capacity. “One ounce a day is plenty and brings great benefits for heart health, thanks to their vitamin E and polyphenol content,” Dr. Ednie says. They’re also loaded with healthy fats, which is good for brain health and can help target inflammation throughout the body.
Dark Chocolate
Yep, you can have your dessert and antioxidants, too. Though ideal in moderation, Dr. Ednie says that dark chocolate made with 70% to 75% cocoa is a legit antioxidant rival for blueberries. “Dark chocolate is rich in flavonoids and polyphenols, and a square or two a day can go a long way,” he says.
Artichokes
Cooked artichokes may fall under the radar, but this tasty veggie is an antioxidant-rich powerhouse. Artichokes are packed with polyphenols—aka plant-based compounds found in certain foods—along with fiber, vitamin C, and magnesium. Consider putting them on your pizza, in your salad, or blended into a creamy dip.
Goji Berries
Goji berries are harder to come by than other fruits—and often sold dried like raisins—but you can still find them at health stores and online. “These are an ancient staple that’s stood the test of time,” Dr. Ednie says. “They’re packed with vitamin C and antioxidants and work well in smoothies or as a snack. Just 2 tablespoons a day is a great start.” Try them in your oatmeal, yogurt, or add to your granola.
Red Kidney Beans
Beans are definitely having a moment in the nutrition world right now, and they’re going to get even buzzier in the months to come. They’re cheap, versatile, and supremely healthy, packing tons of plant-based protein, fiber, and essential minerals such as iron, magnesium, and potassium. Red kidney beans are also rich in polyphenols, making them a versatile superfood.
Walnuts
Walnuts are another nut that make the antioxidant superfood list, and they’re definitely a delicious choice. “These are one of my top recommendations for brain health,” Dr. Ednie says. “Walnuts are loaded with antioxidants and omega-3s, which is a great combo for cognition, mood, and heart support.” One or 2 ounces is a great serving size.
https://www.realsimple.com/foods-with-more-antioxidants-than-blueberries-11773725
*
ending on beauty:
BRIDE OF THE WIND
Because at bedtime I read,
Music is the memory
of what never happened, and heard
the slow movement of a Brahms sextet,
the melody, like a summer
that far north, brought back
a memory of what didn’t happen,
long ago, in my room in Warsaw.
It was a dream of heaven:
I was in my bed, and the green-eyed
motorcycle rider I met
in the Mazurian Lakes, and waited for
that whole year, walking the leafy
length of Warsaw, found me at last —
this bridegroom of the wind,
his weight the sweet burden
of everything unknown.
That night at last I heard
the music of what never happened,
though it did: he’d come to me
in my unlived life. In that heaven,
like the mist blown against
All Hallows’ graves,
I had no plans: I only wanted to feel
his body upon my body.
In the music that would never stop,
we lay dreamless in the quiet dark,
far from time, not needing anything.
~Oriana
*
%20The%20door%20is%20open..jpg)
Erik Bulatov (1933-2025): The door is open
No comments:
Post a Comment