*
PRIMA APRILIS
“Look, it’s snowing!”
I turned around and around,
but saw only a shimmering
emptiness in the air.
My father laughed: Prima aprilis!
The First of April, the fools’ holiday.
I chanted it all day long,
my new incantation:
prima aprilis, prima aprilis.
Some children twisted it to
prila aprila. I enunciated precisely.
With such a headstart in Latin,
I went on to ask my mother
what phallic meant.
Still, I never liked the game.
I was a born April fool.
“You wear your heart
on your sleeve,” a man told me.
“That’s a polite way
of saying you’re a sucker.”
Maybe it’s the persistent
April of my mind,
the world so magical
anything’s possible.
“An iceberg is drifting
down the coast of California” —
and I stand open-mouthed,
silly with wonder.
I fall in love
even faster than that.
Look, it’s snowing.
~ Oriana
Mary:
Ahh...to live in a " world so magical anything's possible" can also make one wise as well as drunk with wonder
*
QUOTATIONS FROM IVAN TURGENEV (best known for his masterpiece, “Fathers and Sons”)
If we wait for the moment when everything, absolutely everything is ready, we shall never begin.
We sit in the mud, my friend, and reach for the stars.
Nothing is worse and more hurtful than a happiness that comes too late. It can give no pleasure, yet it deprives you of that most precious of rights — the right to swear and curse at your fate!”
I look up to heaven only when I want to sneeze.
“Whereas I think: I’m lying here in a haystack... The tiny space I occupy is so infinitesimal in comparison with the rest of space, which I don’t occupy and which has no relation to me. And the period of time in which I’m fated to live is so insignificant beside the eternity in which I haven’t existed and won’t exist... And yet in this atom, this mathematical point, blood is circulating, a brain is working, desiring something... What chaos! What a farce!”
Time sometimes flies like a bird, and sometimes crawls like a worm, but people may be unusually happy when they do not even notice whether time has passed quickly or slowly.
To belong to oneself — the whole savor of life lies in that.
That's what children are for—that their parents may not be bored.
Nature cares nothing for logic, our human logic: she has her own, which we do not recognize and do not acknowledge until we are crushed under its wheel.
The fact is that previously they were simply dunces and now they've suddenly become nihilists.
“O youth! youth! you go your way heedless, uncaring – as if you owned all the treasures of the world; even grief elates you, even sorrow sits well upon your brow. You are self-confident and insolent and you say, 'I alone am alive – behold!' even while your own days fly past and vanish without trace and without number, and everything within you melts away like wax in the sun .. like snow .. and perhaps the whole secret of your enchantment lies not, indeed, in your power to do whatever you may will, but in your power to think that there is nothing you will not do: it is this that you scatter to the winds – gifts which you could never have used to any other purpose. Each of us feels most deeply convinced that he has been too prodigal of his gifts – that he has a right to cry, 'Oh, what could I not have done, if only I had not wasted my time.”
So long as one's just dreaming about what to do, one can soar like an eagle and move mountains, it seems, but as soon as one starts doing it one gets worn out and tired.
Death's an old story, but new for each person.
However passionate, sinning, and rebellious the heart hidden in the tomb, the flowers growing over it peep serenely at us with their innocent eyes; they tell us not of eternal peace alone, of that great peace of "indifferent" nature: they tell us, too, of eternal reconciliation and of life without end.
*
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF LIVING IN THE SOVIET UNION
Of course, there were positive aspects of living in the Soviet Union, which sound very attractive to many people—free education, free apartments, free health care, guaranteed employment and old age pensions—even those who lived in the USSR and know exactly all the downsides of the Soviet life still miss these things.
But first, so that you understand the main difference between the Soviet Union and the West: the USSR was only trying to build communism—a system with no private property, no money, where everything belongs to the people: “Each person gets what they need and contributes what they are able to.” [Oriana: The version I was taught: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”]
This was the promise.
It never became a reality.
The USSR never had communism.
I think communism is a utopia—an idea like a “perfect woman” or “perfect man”, or “perfect relationship.”
Instead of the means of production being owned by certain people (like under capitalism), everything in the Soviet Union belonged to the state—including your apartment (that you had to wait for years to be allocated).
While you waited, you would live in a dormitory—every company, factory, government department had a dormitory, where 4–6 people lived in one room.
There was a shower room and bathrooms, shared by all residents.
Married couples were given their own tiny room in a “family dormitory.”
So, when you were given a “free” apartment by the state, it was still owned by the state—not by you. You were allowed to live there. You had to pay for electricity and water usage, and the maintenance fee (“communal fees”), out of your salary.
So, these were the “free apartments.”
Free education was better—you really could get into any university, learn any hobby, practice any sport with a trainer as a kid, have access to free sport facilities as an adult.
At university or college, they would pay you a stipend (minimal stipend was about 60% of the minimal wage), so you could survive. All out of town students were allocated a bed in a shared room at a student dormitory (up to 12 people per room).
So, to get a roof over your head you only needed to apply for a job at a factory or become a student.
Getting a basic job was very easy. If you didn’t have the skills required, they’d send you to a trade school (where you’d get a scholarship and a bed in a dormitory).
But after the graduation, you had to work where the state sent you, for the next 3 years. And it could be in another town—and even in another republic: someone from a city in the central Russia could be sent to a remote village in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan to work their compulsory 3 years as a “young specialist.”
There was a cheap and very good system of public transportation: buses, electric buses (“trolley buses”), trams, subway, local and long distance trains.
Nearly nobody owned a car privately: a car cost RUB 7,000, while your wage was RUB 100 per month (Soviet wages were very low.: a pair of winter boots could be worth more than your monthly wage).
Cars were owned by state enterprises: managers and top bureaucrats were allocated a car with a driver (who was assigned to spy on you), to drive them to work and appointments.
As a private individual, it would take you 6 years to earn enough money to buy a car—if you didn’t spend money on anything else. And even then, it would take another 5–10 years to be “in the queue to buy a car”—you couldn’t just walk into a dealership and buy it. You had to wait; you had be on the waiting list.
Like you were “on the waiting list” to get an apartment. You also needed to be on the waiting list to get a place where to keep your car—a storage shed (“garage”).
You couldn’t simply walk in and buy any large piece of furniture either—only via a waiting list. Your life was about access to goods and services, trying to get them. It was hard.
The line to the shop to buy bread.
Buying food in a store always meant standing in long queues. You spent hours of your time in queues every week just to buy the food to feed the family. The assortment of food was limited and usually of poor quality.
Health care was free, including dental work and surgeries—quality varied greatly by location, but you’d get some medical care.
Diagnostics was abysmal. If you got seriously sick, the available treatment was very basic.
Of course, the Communist Party bureaucrats had better clinics with imported equipment.
The way the health system worked in the USSR was to get sick people into a hospital and keep them there for weeks. In the hospital, doctors would come every morning and check how you were doing. For instance, if you had a pneumonia, they’d keep you in a hospital for 21 days—they wouldn’t let you go home, even if you were feeling better. You didn’t have to pay for anything.
There was an 18-month paid maternity leave when a woman had a child—plus you could extend the maternity leave for another 18 months without pay (3 years in total), and your position would be kept for you.
This obviously inhibited young women’s career prospects—who wants an employee who’s going to be out on maternity leave for years, and then keep missing weeks off work looking after kids who pick illnesses at a preschool?
There was also paid leave to look after a sick child: with a cold or flu, the doctor would give you 10–14 days of leave, and you would get paid full wages at your place of work.
Preschool was also free. You were guaranteed to get a placement for your toddler in a preschool near you.
Career prospects would improve for women when their kids became teenagers—they could get promotions to some low level management positions, but usually would never reach the heights the men could reach, who got promotions already in their 20s.
The downside to having all these freebies?
You were not allowed to think for yourself—everything was according to what the communist party wanted from you.
Your life wasn’t yours—you were born to serve the system.
All your education had to serve the state. Your biography was on record, and any deviation from the prescribed behavior would make you an outcast.
“Pioneers”—children’s communist organization for kids 9–13 years old. They were wearing red scarves around their necks.
Reading: the Soviet people loved to read.
Newspapers and magazines were very popular.
Books were hard to buy—except the ones by Lenin, Marx, and directives by the Communist Party. People used libraries, where you could get some interesting books.
People from other cities traveled to Moscow by train to buy meat, cheese, and other food, as well as better quality clothes and shoes. Moscow had a completely different level of supply. (You couldn’t move to live in Moscow; you had to live in your own city.)
A department store in Moscow—most people were visitors who traveled to the capital to shop.
In the USSR, all men had to serve in the army for 2 years, once they turn 18. Soldiers were widely used as free labor on building sites.
Soviet life was crowded. You rarely had space to just be by yourself; there were always people around.
If you were speaking against the state or doubted the communist system, you’d be either imprisoned or sent to a psychiatric asylum and medicated—think “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.” Your family would be ostracized, lose their career prospects, your friends would be getting black marks in their files.
I’m talking about the Soviet Union in 1970s-1980s—the decades before its collapse, which happened in 1991.
Early years of the Soviet Union were much worse: no freebies, just basically slave labor and massive purges. They needed to get rid of the people who remembered a different, better life before the Bolsheviks. ~ Elena Gold, Quora
Neal Thompson:
I always like messing with people by telling them I can give them three examples of very successful communism. The examples are a beehive, an ant hill and a termite mound. The only thing that messes communism up is human nature.
John Maclachlangray:
The leaders tried to control human nature the way you train a dog. A great concept, if it weren’t for human nature. Other utopian communities have been tried & met with the same fate.
Whatth444444:
It is a little bit misunderstanding that there was no unemployment in USSR. Being unemployed was criminal offense in USSR, so you didn’t have much choice actually.
Elena Gold:
That’s true. You had to have a job—or get a visit by your district’s police inspector. You could always get a menial job though: like a cloakroom attendant in a theatre. Minimum wage was 70 rub./month, and you only had to work 3–4 hours in the evening. I did it during my student years. Met some interesting characters.
100 rub/month — that’s what my parents (engineers) earned.
The minimal wage was 70 rub./month.
Stipend for students (scholarship) was 40–55 rub./month.
I was a straight-A student, so my scholarship was 67.50 rub. per month.
*
THE US IS WAGING AN AI-ASSISTED WAR ON IRAN
Experts and former officials say the military's artificial intelligence systems are central to "Operation Epic Fury”
As the war drags on, AI could play an increasing role.
More than a hundred lawmakers in the House and Senate signed letters sent to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth in mid-March asking whether the Maven Smart System was involved in the strike on the school.
Hundreds of Iranian civilian deaths in the war have put the U.S. military's new AI systems in the spotlight and raised concerns from lawmakers over whether these systems are making deadly mistakes.
Experts and former officials say the military's artificial intelligence systems are central to "Operation Epic Fury," which is seeing AI deployed on the battlefield to a new degree.
"For somebody who spent years talking about how we're moving too slow, I'm now concerned about how fast we're moving," said Jack Shanahan, a retired lieutenant general who led efforts to develop and integrate AI into the military.
"At some point it may become increasingly difficult to define what an advanced AI system must not do, as opposed to humans defining what they want it to do.”
At a closed door House Armed Services Committee briefing on March 25, Pentagon officials told lawmakers AI was used in data management, but not final target selection, according to a person with knowledge of the briefing.
U.S. soldiers are "leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools," Adm. Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said in a March 11 video update on the war. "Humans will always make final decisions on what to shoot and what not to shoot and when to shoot but advanced AI tools can turn processes that used to take hours, and sometimes even days, into seconds."
The military has hit more than 12,000 targets in the monthlong Iran war, including more than 1,000 in the first 24 hours after the war launched on Feb. 28. One of the sites bombed that day was an Iranian school, leading to at least 175 deaths, most of them children.
In the early days of the war, the U.S. military fired more long-range, expensive missiles to hit Iran from far away, but has since shifted to using more short-range gravity bombs that can be dropped from aircraft, now that Iran's air defenses are degraded, according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and other officials.
The first targets struck likely came from longstanding Pentagon plans for an Iran attack, said Emelia Probasco, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology who studies military uses of AI.
But as the war drags on, AI could play an increasing role, Probasco said, including in "prioritization" of targets – telling soldiers where to hit first.
"We are now entering the phase where those targets have been attacked and now you could potentially start to see an even greater impact of AI," she said. "You're looking for time critical targets, targets that move, targets that we didn't know about before."
20 soldiers with AI match the work of 2,000.
For nearly a decade, the military has been integrating an AI tool known as the Maven Smart System into its computer systems. The system, often shortened to "Maven," fuses the military's many, disparate channels of data, intelligence, satellite imagery and asset movements into a single software platform. Military leaders say the system can make decisions in the heat of battle faster and more effective.
The system has already drastically increased the number of targets that a given number of operators can hit. According to Probasco's 2024 study of Army exercises using the system, roughly 20 people using it could match the work of more than 2,000 soldiers in Iraq war-era targeting cells then considered the most efficient in U.S. military history.
And its development in the two years since her study has been "dramatic," she added.
In a demo of the Maven Smart System at a March 12 conference, Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon's chief digital and artificial intelligence officer, showed the ease with which a user could turn a structure into a ball of flame with a "left click, right click, left click."
On the screen behind Cameron, a cursor hovered over an overhead image of lined up cars, showing numbers representing their measurements, locational coordinates and other data. With a few clicks, the "detection" of an object could be moved into a "targeting workflow," Cameron said.
The system offered a choice of "which metrics AI should prioritize,” including "time to target," "distance," or "munitions." A sleek graphic appeared to show on a map the circular blast radius that the strike would create, and the arc that the weapons would travel. After a couple clicks on a blue "approve" bar and green "task executed" bar, the dark cloud of an explosion filled the screen.
"When we started this, it literally took hours to do what you just saw there," Cameron said.
Iran school strike raises AI questions
In spite of officials' claims that AI improves the military's accuracy, the civilian death toll in Iran has raised concerns over whether it has contributed to faulty targeting.
Lawmakers have asked whether AI played a role in the school strike. Investigations by the New York Times and other outlets found that the United States was likely behind the strike, which used a U.S.-made Tomahawk missile. The school may have been on an outdated list of targets that the military failed to recheck, according to those reports. The Pentagon has said its own investigation into the strike is ongoing.
More than a hundred lawmakers in the House and Senate signed letters sent to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth in mid-March asking whether the Maven Smart System was involved in the strike on the school, and for more details on how the military is checking the work of AI.
Shanahan said he saw "no indications" that AI was involved in the strike, "but we need to acknowledge that while future AI will be capable of finding more targets than ever before, humans must remain responsible and accountable for the decisions to hit those targets.”
In past military exercises, AI has demonstrated far lower accuracy than humans. In the Army exercises that Probasco studied, the Maven Smart System could correctly identify a tank around 60% of the time, as compared to a human soldier's 84% accuracy, and that number dropped to just 30% in snowy weather. An AI targeting system tested by the Air Force in 2021 hit just 25% accuracy when it was tested on imperfect conditions.
The Pentagon in 2023 issued a directive that soldiers and commanders using AI systems must be able to "exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.”
"Our military operates in full compliance with all U.S. laws and established policies, such as ensuring a human is always in the loop for critical operational decisions," the Pentagon said in a statement to USA TODAY.
"The responsibility for the lawful use of any AI tool rests with the human operator and the chain of command, not within the software itself."
Pentagon goes after company behind its AI chatbot
The Trump administration as a whole has moved to remove regulations around AI in the name of innovation and cutting bureaucracy, and the Pentagon has followed suit. In a Jan. 9 memo laying out the military's AI strategy, Hegseth directed the Pentagon to work towards "unleashing experimentation" with AI models and "aggressively identifying and eliminating bureaucratic barriers to deeper integration" of AI.
"We must accept that the risks of not moving fast enough outweigh the risks of imperfect alignment," the memo read.
In recent months, that approach has put the Pentagon at odds with Anthropic, the Silicon Valley company behind Claude, the only AI chatbot that is currently configured to operate on the Maven Smart System.
Anthropic sought out an agreement from the Pentagon that its technology would not be used for mass surveillance, or to hit targets without human signoff. The Pentagon refused to accept those terms, saying Claude must be available to the military for "all lawful uses," as its officials publicly blasted the company on social media. The Pentagon moved to declare the company a "supply chain risk" – a designation meant to restrict companies vulnerable to sabotage or subversion by U.S. adversaries – but was blocked from the move by a federal judge's ruling on March 26.
"The military will not allow a vendor to insert itself into the chain of command by restricting the lawful use of a critical capability," the Pentagon said in a statement. "It is the military's sole responsibility to ensure our war fighters have the tools they need to win in a crisis, without interference from corporate policies.”
Anthropic has said in statements that it does not believe the Pentagon has yet used Claude in a way that broke its conditions. But the dispute reportedly arose after Anthropic learned that the military used Claude in its operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. "Anthropic currently does not have confidence," the company maintained in court documents, "that Claude would function reliably or safely if used to support lethal autonomous warfare."
AI built for military purposes "already has a lot of accuracy issues," but language learning models like Claude "are actually even more inaccurate," said Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute.
"They're not very good at solving for tasks outside of what they've been trained on, and that's ok if you're using it in a non critical environment, like writing an email, but that's very different when you're dealing with novel scenarios like a fog of war."
The dispute with Claude is not the first time that the increasing business partnerships between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon to create high tech weapons and military tools have come under criticism from the companies building them. Google was originally contracted to work on the Maven Smart System in its early developmental stages, but dropped the contract in 2018 in response to a protest movement from its workers. Google and Amazon workers have also in recent years protested the companies' AI contract with the Israeli military and Google's work with immigration and border enforcement.
"If any tech company caves to the Pentagon’s demands," Hegseth "will have the power to build and deploy A.I.-powered drones that kill people without the approval of any human," a group of organizations representing Amazon, Google, and Microsoft workers wrote in a statement on the Anthropic dispute.
Shanahan said human control of AI for military uses is a "nonnegotiable starting point," but it could eventually be confined to the design and development of systems that increasingly operate on their own.
"You're going to be operating under the assumption that at some point an autonomous weapon is released, and no human will have the ability to bring it back.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/04/01/us-ai-assisted-war-iran/89299007007/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
*
IS CREATIVITY A YOUNG PERSON’S GAME?
There’s an unspoken assumption, particularly in America, that youth and creativity tend to go hand in hand. It’s no surprise: Many of the artistic greats, from Jack Kerouac and Bob Dylan to Zadie Smith and Taylor Swift, found immense success when they were young. The fastest-growing startups — Meta, Snapchat, Airbnb, and so on — were founded by twentysomethings, some of whom never graduated from college. A quote frequently attributed to Albert Einstein holds that scientists who have not made a great contribution to their fields before the age of 30 will never do so in their lifetimes. As one of my chemist colleagues, at 55, told me, “Science is a young man’s game.”
But can we generalize from these anecdotes? Can we really conclude that young people are more creative than their older counterparts? To answer this question, we need to determine when people are at their creative peak, and to do that, we need to delve into the science of creativity.
In my book with Danah Henriksen, “Explaining Creativity,” I touch upon studies of thousands of creators, from their 20s to the end of their lives, demonstrating that they generate their best work at the same time they’re putting the most work out into the world. This is particularly true of scientists, whose creative contributions are well documented because everything they do is quantified through citations, publications, books, awards, and patents.
What age, you might wonder, are scientists likely to be when the Nobel committee comes calling? Would you bet on the young striver or the seasoned expert? The answer, interestingly, is neither. The most creative people are smack in the middle of their careers — neither in their 20s nor nearing retirement. If we were to visualize this finding, we’d see that creativity is an inverted-U function of career age, or the length of time the individual has been working in their field.
In other words, as the years go by, productivity increases until it peaks. Then creativity starts to drop, and it continues to decline.
The story is, of course, different depending on the type of work you do. Physicists, writers, and painters peak in their 20s or 30s, biologists and social scientists peak in their 40s, and writers and philosophers can maintain a steady output through to retirement. This broadly aligns with a 1966 study showing that scientists and artists peak earlier than scholars such as historians and psychologists.
I also want to stress again that the research shows creators have their most important, groundbreaking ideas in the same year they’re most prolific. If you’re a serial inventor, the patent that makes you millions is likely to be from the same year that you filed the most patents. If you’re a painter, then your most famous painting will likely be in the same year that you made the most paintings. The key to successful creativity is productivity; quantity leads to quality.
You might be wondering what these insights mean for your own creative output, whether you’re a writer, coder, sculptor, engineer, or anything else. You’re right to wonder, especially in a society where all manner of things are competing for your attention, making sustained focus — a prerequisite of creativity — increasingly hard to hone. So, I’ve compiled below a list of several nuggets of wisdom that might help maximize your creative output. It goes without saying that these are easier said than done:
Work hard and finish projects. The aim should always be to put your creations into the world.
Don’t spend all of your time on just one idea, no matter how great you think it is. Spread your energy around. Place multiple bets.
Some creative professions — and some types of work — peak earlier than others. Consider switching to a different path in your 30s or 40s to catch multiple peaks.
If you want quick success, choose professions that peak early: math, science, computers, and engineering. But if you want a sustained creative life, look more broadly.
Applying these principles in the real world can certainly be challenging. For instance, if you’re in high school or college, what should you major in? Liberal arts colleges have been saying for years, “We’re not educating you for your first job; we’re educating you for your entire career.” That kind of holistic approach to education is great. But in such a volatile labor market as America’s, you do still need that first job. So maybe consider double-majoring in an early-career field (math, engineering) and a later-career field (literature, history, philosophy).
If you’re mid-career, you’re at your peak, so make good use of the resources, the network, and the reputation that you have already built for yourself. By now, you should have the foundation to do your best work. If you’re nearing retirement, you simply can’t coast. You must work just as hard as you did in your 20s, which might be painful at an older age. But if you put in the work, your experience and wisdom will pay off greatly.
One more thing: The beauty of creativity is that it’s often collaborative. This means that you can expand your creative potential by collaborating across age groups. So, consider pairing up with someone who is considerably older or younger than you. This might feel counterintuitive: If you’re senior and experienced, you probably have a fancier title, you make more money than your younger colleagues, and you may wonder: What can that recent college graduate with little to no professional experience teach me? But trust me, that college graduate is thinking that much of your so-called expertise is outmoded and irrelevant.
This divide is difficult to bridge in the workplace. But throughout human history, it has been done repeatedly with great success: Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were over two decades apart in age when they together fundamentally reshaped quantum mechanics. Larry Page and Eric Schmidt had a 20-year age gap when they founded Google. Leonard Bernstein, as a middle-aged musician, composed works often directly inspired by those of his younger students. If people of different age groups can learn to combine their respective strengths, collaboration across decades of life experience is a surefire path to greater creativity.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/is-creativity-a-young-persons-game/
*
HITLER’S PLANS FOR AFTER WINNING THE WAR
The largest dream they had was to invade and take over Russia and Ukraine. They referred to it as living space. Their plan was to remove all the current residents of both countries, and turn the massive amount of beautiful land in Russia/Ukraine into a giant agricultural area a breadbasket used solely to feed their own gigantic empire. I have heard they were planning to establish a permanent series of fortifications and soldiers along the Ural Mountains — a wall of steel that could keep the rest of Asia out for at least a thousand years.
However, perhaps the craziest thing they had planned was for Berlin. They were going to change its name to Germania. Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, created scale models of buildings so large they are almost impossible to envision. One single hall was built to accommodate 200 000 people. The hall was so high that the exhalations from the audience would have turned to mist and caused rain to pour down from the ceiling within the hall. Can you picture that? Rain in a building.
They also were considering crossing the Atlantic Ocean and invading America. Engineers were developing a special bomber plane to be called the America Bomber which could fly from Germany directly to New York City. Their ultimate goal was to control every drop of oil, and every bushel of wheat on Earth so they would never have to communicate with, or trade with anyone else ever again. What a blessing those plans remained on paper. ~ Alex Colby, Quora
*
19TH-CENTURY BLUES: WHEN SCIENCE KILLED GOD AND MADE SOME ENGLISHMEN SAD
With the Royal Navy ruling the waves, Queen Victoria safely on her throne, science explaining a confusing world, and British missionaries, explorers, and armies turning the map pink you’d think that the mid-19th-century English (or at least the upper classes) would be a reasonably happy lot. In his superb new book The Boundless Deep Richard Holmes shows that this was not the case. Using Alfred Tennyson as his fulcrum Holmes unpacks the many intellectual currents that began to completely unhinge Victorian optimism and the Whig interpretation of history as one of linear progress.
The Boundless Deep has received rave reviews but it isn’t an entirely new idea. There is a moment in Ian Watt’s brilliant, perhaps now largely forgotten, study of Joseph Conrad, Conrad in the Nineteenth Century (1979), when Watt reveals what he considers to be one of the keys to understanding Heart of Darkness, “Conrad derived from the facts of natural science a view of man’s situation very close to that of modern Existentialism.”
Conrad had begun to reject ideas of progress and was deeply troubled by the “New Science.” He was not alone in this view.
Lord Kelvin’s discovery in the early 1850s of the second law of thermodynamics and the unavoidable “heat death of the universe,” together with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, led to a growing cult of Victorian pessimism that infected many of the society’s poets, politicians and intellectuals. As Watt explains, “the previous century has inferred a divine watchmaker from the perfection of the celestial machine, it was now discovered that not only was there no watchmaker, but the spring was running down.”
In The Boundless Deep Holmes explains how the rapid growth of scientific knowledge reshaped Victorian intellectual and cultural life, in particular the life of the young Alfred Tennyson and his circle. Holmes points out that new discoveries about the natural world, especially the oceans, atmosphere, and unseen forces of nature, expanded the boundaries of human understanding and challenged long held assumptions about humanity’s place in the universe.
Tennyson, who became Poet Laureate in 1850, lived during a period when traditional religious beliefs were increasingly challenged by these new scientific theories. Holmes highlights Tennyson’s personal struggles with grief and doubt after the death of his close friend Arthur Henry Hallam. These experiences shaped Tennyson’s engagement with emerging scientific ideas, particularly debates about geology and evolution. His famous poem In Memoriam A.H.H. reflects the tension between faith and scientific discovery, acknowledging the unsettling implications of nature “red in tooth and claw.”
Tennyson was deeply curious about contemporary science and maintained friendships with many notable scientists and intellectuals who influenced his thinking. Holmes convincingly articulates Tennyson’s attempts to incorporate these insights into a broader philosophical and poetic vision. Even Tennyson’s mystical, deliberately old fashioned, Arthurian poetry often reflects awe at the vastness and mystery of the natural world, an attitude that paralleled the expanding horizons of Victorian scientific exploration.
Holmes presents the growth of science as a gradual and collaborative process rather than a series of isolated breakthroughs. Advances in fields such as oceanography, meteorology, and geology allowed scientists to explore areas that had previously seemed mysterious or inaccessible. Improved instruments and ambitious expeditions revealed the complexity of ocean currents, weather systems, and marine ecosystems.
These discoveries changed how Victorians understood nature: instead of a static creation, the natural world appeared dynamic, interconnected, and governed by discoverable laws. Holmes emphasizes the networks of correspondence, research societies, and public lectures that helped spread these ideas beyond specialist circles. Indeed it was a series of sensational popular penny pamphlets that lamented the coming “heat death of the universe” not William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)’s dry scientific papers.
Holmes’s excels in these sections which collide many of his interests. His portrait of the young Tennyson and his family is delightful and everything we would expect from one of our greatest critics of the English Romantics.
Holmes shows how the New Science shaped literature, public debate, and the emotional life of the period. Victorian society grappled with the implications of new knowledge while still searching for meaning and moral order. Through this interplay between discovery and culture, The Boundless Deep portrays the 19th century as a transformative moment when science profoundly altered both intellectual thought and everyday experience. Even as their missionaries penetrated “darkest Africa” the established church knew that it was in trouble. Attempts to mock and ridicule Darwin failed and he ended up being buried in Westminster Abbey next to Isaac Newton.
In the name of progress the Victorians built railways, bridges, hospitals, roads, sewage systems. They banned children from factories and made schooling mandatory. Life expectancy went up especially after the “hungry forties.” Acceptance of the germ theory of disease likely saved more lives than any other single development in the history of medicine.
Throughout Eric Hobsbawm’s so-called “Long Nineteenth Century,” the British navy pacified the oceans and British diplomacy prevented large European wars. Whiggish optimism and Pax Britannica seemed to herald a steampunk End of History. Yet in London even as child mortality crashed and the River Thames stopped smelling like an open sewer a large clique of intellectuals including Tennyson and Conrad began to have serious doubts about the point of it all.
Tennyson was certainly aware of Schopenhauer, and German pessimism was a growing influence in English literature throughout the late 19th century. Conrad read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and likely Nietzsche’s even more extreme compatriot Philipp Mainländer who cheerfully argued that not only was God dead but that he had committed suicide in disgust at the sorry state of his creation and that our universe had grown like a warped fungus from God’s decaying corpse.
If Darwin killed God and Kelvin killed any point to doing anything where does that leave the artist or indeed the ordinary human being? In a universe where all matter decays, all human achievement is for naught and the universe ends in a long, slow, silent death what should we do? Many Victorian intellectuals worried deeply about this and even today there are no easy answers.
It is a testament to Tennyson’s genius that he did actually come up with a sort of answer. Camus in Myth of Sisyphus suggested that we are to consider Sisyphus happy as he chases that stupid boulder down the hill. But happiness is perhaps too extravagant an emotion. Maybe just saying “fuck it” is enough.
This concept has long legs in our culture. Achilles returning to the fight in the Iliad, Macbeth choosing to go down swinging after he has been betrayed, tricked, and defeated by his own hubris and ambition. Fuck it is a powerful idea of acceptance and a rejection of inertia. You know you’ve lost and you’re gonna die but you’re not going to go out like a punk. Hollywood is replete with this notion, especially in Westerns. When William Holden just looks at Ernest Borgnine and Borgnine laughs at the end of Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch (1969) we know exactly what Holden and Borgnine are thinking. They are going to attempt to salvage their honor and go to their deaths with dignity.
Tennyson captures this idea in his still very popular poem Ulysses (1842). Odysseus, safely back in Ithaca for decades, is now aged and weary but he is determined to rouse his tired, old shipmates for one last voyage. This is the essence of “fuck it.” Here’s how the poem ends:
Death closes all: but ere the end,
Some work of noble note may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
https://lithub.com/19th-century-blues-when-science-killed-god-and-made-some-englishmen-sad/
*
THE RISE IN FAMILY ESTRANGEMENT
Adult children vs. parents, siblings vs. siblings — calling quits on one’s kin seems increasingly common.
In a 2025 YouGov poll of 4,395 US adults, nearly 4 in 10 respondents said they “no longer have a relationship with” one or more immediate family members. An episode of the Oprah Podcast on the “culture of estrangement” brought the topic home to millions of listeners.
While polls, social media and news of high-profile celebrity splits highlight the prevalence and pain of family breakups, researchers’ growing but still limited attention has yet to quantify how much they’ve multiplied. There are, however, plenty of potential drivers in today’s divorce rates, political polarization, rising individualism, reliance on therapists and social media memes about toxic relationships, says Joshua Coleman, an author, researcher and psychologist in private practice in the San Francisco Bay Area.
It all comes at a time when more Americans are prioritizing mental health — and when the internet is helping people find connections outside the family, he adds.
“In just the same way that divorce has become destigmatized, estrangement has become destigmatized,” Coleman contends. “There’s a social contagion, particularly on sites like Instagram and TikTok, that characterizes this act of cutting ties as a way of asserting one’s identity and protecting mental health.”
Coleman, who has written two books on estrangement and collaborated on two national surveys on the subject, including a 2024 Harris Poll, has become a leading authority on a trend that can elicit such deep shame and discomfort that researchers often struggle to get people to discuss it.
The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
You’ve described family estrangement in the US as an epidemic, and it’s clear you don’t think that’s a positive. Why?
It fractures an already fractured society. We become more tribal and more isolated. The family is such an important locus of identity and self-esteem and mental health that putting it on the chopping block is wrongheaded. This high level of estrangements leaves older people without care and younger people without resources. We’re leaving the state to take over the space where family members used to help each other out, even as the state does a frankly shitty job of that.
What’s causing all these rifts?
It depends whom you ask. If you look at the surveys of adult children, they’ll say that the biggest reason is emotional abuse and maybe values differences, whereas parents are more likely to blame their divorce, their child’s marriage or their child’s therapy. Researchers The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
You’ve described family estrangement in the US as an epidemic, and it’s clear you don’t think that’s a positive. Why?
It fractures an already fractured society. We become more tribal and more isolated. The family is such an important locus of identity and self-esteem and mental health that putting it on the chopping block is wrongheaded. This high level of estrangements leaves older people without care and younger people without resources. We’re leaving the state to take over the space where family members used to help each other out, even as the state does a frankly shitty job of that.
What’s causing all these rifts?
It depends whom you ask. If you look at the surveys of adult children, they’ll say that the biggest reason is emotional abuse and maybe values differences, whereas parents are more likely to blame their divorce, their child’s marriage or their child’s therapy. Researchers have found radical differences in these different perspectives.
We do know that parents’ divorce is associated with a high risk of estrangement. When I surveyed more than 1,600 estranged parents in 2020, I found about 70 percent of them became estranged from a child after divorcing the other biological parent. That’s really high, but maybe not surprising. Divorce can radically realign family ties and perceptions. A child who long thought of the family as a singular unit may now see it as a loose affiliation of individuals. And, of course, when the divorce is acrimonious, kids may feel they have to side with one parent against the other.
Remarriage is also a risk, because the adult child may feel displaced by the new siblings or step-siblings, or they may not like the new wife or husband.
An adult child’s marriage can also be a flashpoint. In 2019, I collaborated with researchers on a survey of 1,035 mothers who were estranged from at least one child. The mothers were recruited from an email discussion list of people who sought support and help with their estrangement, so it was a selective sample. The majority blamed outside factors — i.e., not their own actions — for the split. Seventy-eight percent said the estrangement happened after the child was married or became involved with a partner.
This is something I see a lot in my practice, where a daughter-in-law or a son-in-law appears to cause a rift. I call it “the cult of one,” where the new partner becomes the sole interpreter of his or her spouse’s past and present. Suddenly, the adult child comes to believe he or she has had a long history of problems with the parent.
Yet another strong factor these days is politics. In the Harris Poll, 42 percent said politics was the biggest factor driving family members apart.
It’s the kids who are mostly initiating these estrangements, correct?
That’s true. We don’t have good research on the parents, but we know they are in the minority, and that it’s usually for religious reasons or they disapprove of the child’s gender identity or maybe the person that they’ve married, or their values.
Why do you think parents are so much less likely to cut off their kids than kids are to cut off their parents?
Sociologists use the phrase “the intergenerational stake,” to convey the idea that when you’re raising your children you make a big investment, in part in the interest of furthering your genetic line. That can lead parents to assume that when they raise children, they will be close to them throughout their lifetime. Yet that’s obviously not how it is for most kids. This may help explain why a classic study in 1999 showed that parents of young adult children reported closer relationships and fewer problems than the children perceived.
What I often tell parents is that by the time we have adult children and grandchildren, they are front and center of our minds, whereas for adult children that’s not the case. I wouldn’t expect my adult children to think about me as frequently as I think about them. There’s a great asymmetry of investment.
You seem to have a great deal of empathy for the parents in this situation, but maybe less for the adult children?
The impacts are just very unequal. There can be some big upsides for the adult child. Certainly, some parents are hopeless, destructive people because of mental illness or addictions or their own unworked-through traumas. Researchers interviewing adult children report many stories of mistreatment including abuse, betrayal and general poor parenting. And in general, the adult child may feel the upside of, “Now I’m protecting myself. I’m prioritizing my mental health or my marriage or my identity.” It’s all tied to these very Western individualistic ideals around autonomy and agency, and there’s clearly value in that.
But there’s nothing like that for the parent. For the parent, there is so much shame, loss, grief, distress and social isolation. Even in cases where the child is abusive, there’s a lot of suffering and shame. The parents may feel some relief if the kid is not in contact because they don’t have to worry about them stealing from them or abusing them, but they’re still burdened with enormous worry.
I don’t feel like the culture’s yet reckoned with how much we are wrongly blaming parents. We’re still in a time where people assume that if you have problems in adulthood, it’s largely your parents’ fault.
So am I more sympathetic to the parent’s plight? If I have both people in therapy, I’m equally sensitive because I know that the adult child is struggling with something profound and deserves empathy, or they wouldn’t have cut off the parent in the first place. So in that therapy environment, if anything, I’m more committed to the adult child because I know that unless they feel understood by the parent, they’re far less likely to want to reconcile.
In one Australian study, of 25 adult children who initiated or maintained estrangement from one or both parents, the interviewees described the break as the “only avenue to personal growth, healing and happiness.” How many estranged adult children get to that place?
Lots of the kids do report feeling less stressed, but whether their concrete mental health is better is an open question. Yes, they’re avoiding conflict, and may feel relief and resolution, but it comes with a degree of shame and loss and guilt — and a lot of uncomfortable ambivalence, including, often, loss of financial support and connection to family history and contact with other relatives.
You’ve written about your own experience with estrangement….
My daughter was a toddler when I divorced from her mother, but she didn’t speak to me for several years in her early twenties, in part feeling like I prioritized my second marriage over her. It was, beyond doubt, the worst, most painful challenge I’ve ever faced.
One thing I’ve noticed that seems to particularly bother you is therapists’ role, in cases where they may be encouraging adult children to cut off contact with a parent.
Therapists can do a lot of damage. We might encourage a parent to cut a child out of a will without having that parent consider how much he or she may have contributed to conflict with that child. Or we can side with an adult child who wants to end a relationship with a parent without being sensitive to the repercussions for that client and the parent and possibly grandchildren.
I don’t believe there’s research on this topic, but I do think that therapists are a big agent of estrangements, and I would like to see my field be much more strict about diagnosing people who aren’t in the room.
When we diagnose someone we don’t know, we depersonalize that person. When we call them emotionally immature or narcissistic or borderline or a gaslighter or a boundary-crosser, we make them seem irredeemable, and decrease the chance of the adult child wanting to work on the relationship. I’ve had more than one adult child say, in a hopeful tone, “Do you think my mother’s a narcissist?” They want to hear yes, because it helps them not feel guilty about having the distance they want or need.
Surveys show siblings are the most likely to be estranged — why is that?
It’s not that they’re most at risk, but just statistically there’s more of them.
As for the causes, it can be due to a long unresolved history of sibling rivalry — the idea that one sibling got preferential treatment, even if objectively they didn’t.
A history of sibling abuse can certainly be a factor. But it could also be that one sibling’s life has simply turned out better, while another had a failure to launch.
I don’t believe studies so far have looked at whether one kid may have been more vulnerable to mental illness in the first place, which may have caused him or her to view the world in a much more negative way that increased their likelihood of a later estrangement.
How common is it for the estrangements to be repaired?
Sociologist Rin Reczek’s research out of Ohio State University has found that 81 percent of mothers and 69 percent of fathers eventually reconcile with their child. That sounds high to me, but if that’s the case, it’s reassuring. It’s not unusual, I think, for estrangers to resume relationships, even temporarily.
What might help increase the chance of repair?
One of the ways that I think about this is that a close parental-child relationship is a psychological achievement on both sides.
As a culture, we have undergone a major shift over the last several decades. Families have become a lot more egalitarian. Children are encouraged to be more autonomous vs. simply obedient. Families have also become closer; Pew research has found most parents say their young adult children know them well, are in closer contact and depend on them, which is a change from prior generations.
In this context, it takes a certain amount of psychological health, emotional intelligence, and an ability to self-reflect and empathize to be an adult child and not feel so enmeshed with your parent or dependent on them or reactive to them that you’re devastated if they say something obnoxious.
It also takes a great deal of psychological health for the parent to see your kid as somebody with their own life and needs, and not be undone by the fact that they get a vote about who you were as a parent and who you are as a person. For a lot of parents, it’s still kind of new that they can’t just insist on a relationship, or guilt trip their kid, or remind them that just the year before they’d sent a card saying, “You’re the best mom ever.”
And so, it’s not surprising that so many parents are lost. Their kid says: “You emotionally abused me.” They’re like, “The hell I did.”
What do we know about the most promising behaviors for a parent who wants to become “un-estranged”?
In my polling, I’ve definitely found great benefits for parents who write a letter of amends, in which they acknowledge their adult child’s feelings and take responsibility for harm they may have caused. It requires them to honestly acknowledge what they did or didn’t do that was hurtful, and their willingness to hear what the child has to say and try to modify their behavior. I have found this is the biggest predictor for those who eventually reconcile.
By the way, why are the statistics on this topic so varied? I’m seeing numbers ranging from 15 percent to 38 percent in reference to people experiencing estrangement.
People are defining it differently. The developmental psychologist Lucy Blake, who is a leader in this field, noted this problem in her review in 2017, as one of the things that makes it so hard to talk about. When you study estrangement, do you include only the nuclear family, or broaden out to more distant relatives?
Karl Pillemer at Cornell University published a survey in 2020 that found that 27 percent of Americans 18 and older had cut off contact with a family member, but he included aunts, uncles, grandparents, nieces and nephews. In the Harris Poll we did in 2024, 35 percent of the 1,068 US adults surveyed said they were estranged from an immediate family member such as a parent or a sibling.
Then there’s the question of whether you include relationships that have significantly worsened, or limit it to cutting off contact? Kristina Scharp, a researcher specializing in communication, has described estrangement as existing along a continuum, with fluctuating components that could include communication quality and quantity, physical distance, presence or absence of emotion, and even taking legal action.
I would define estrangement as a pretty formal cutoff involving members of the immediate family. If it’s an adult child, maybe they send a birthday card once a year. But otherwise, it’s pretty much no contact.
What major questions do you wish researchers would explore on this topic?
I can think of a few. Are adoptive parents more at risk of later estrangement? I think they are, but I don’t think there’s any research yet.
Another is if the death of a parent or the death of a sibling increases the risk of estrangement. More research on that would be really useful.
The more we know about the causes and effects of estrangements, the more we can help and empathize with those involved. I’d also like to see more understanding of the long-term effects of grandparent estrangement.
Typically, if the adult child cuts off the parent, they cut off access to the grandchildren as well. Is that a traumatic event in the grandchild’s life? I would argue that it is, but there’s not really any research about that.
If estrangement is as common as these polls suggest, and as negative as you suggest, what would you change in systems that touch families, such as schools, health care and family courts?
I would wish that people who are going to divorce have a lot more counseling about how to protect their children from a later alienation, because divorce is such a common pathway.
But I think the biggest problem is really American-style individualism, and a preoccupation with the self and personal growth and personal happiness.
Sociologists have documented the relationship between the decline in social cohesiveness and reduced community feeling beginning with Gen X, which I think includes reduced levels of a sense of obligation to the family.
The US has the highest or very close to the highest degree of individualism among Western countries. Then add in all these social media amplifiers, and the way that estrangement has become kind of fashionable. So, what do you do about that?
Do you see any hope that things will improve, that we’ll get better as a society at strengthening and maintaining these fragile family ties?
Yes. I’m considering writing something about this, because I think we’re at an inflection point. Parents being estranged today are really the first generation that’s had to do this kind of emotional work, to be so self-reflective and curate their own childhood and history. My generation wasn’t making our parents do that. Or rather, I did ask my parents to do something like that once, and they got completely defensive about it, so I backed off.
I think younger generations are more psychologically literate, and perhaps will be able to communicate with their own kids in a way that the adult child needs, and that their parents weren’t able to do. So I do anticipate a decrease. Still, I think there’ll always be estrangements for other reasons, such as a problematic son-in-law or daughter-in-law, or mental illness on the part of the parent or the adult child, or bad therapists, or all the reasons we’ve discussed.
But I do have faith that parents can start to respond more productively. I get letters every day saying, “Oh, if I’d only read your book before” – and it’s not because there’s anything that’s secret in my book, except to say just be empathic and take responsibility and don’t defend yourself.
Younger generations may feel like they can control this and be better parents and their kids would never do what they did to their own parents. And they may have a big comeuppance in realizing that just because you have those skills, it doesn’t insulate you from all the other ways you can become estranged. ~ Dr. Joshua Coleman
https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/mind/2026/causes-of-family-estrangement?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
*
ASIA’S ROBOT REVOLUTION
In Korea and Japan, humanoid machines aren’t rivals but partners, assisting with elder care, creating jobs for people with disabilities, and even leading religious rituals.
In 2023, I traveled to South Korea on a Fulbright fellowship, excited to revisit some of my favorite places from 30 years earlier when I was an exchange student at Han Nam University. Han Nam is located in Daejeon City, in the heart of Korea, a university founded by Presbyterians in the 1950s, in the aftermath of the Korean War.
Daejeon City is also the heart of Korea’s science and technology boom, with cutting-edge universities dotting the mountainous landscape. Students today rush by, focused on their smartphones, largely oblivious to the previous generation’s plight. Most are more interested in securing well-paying jobs than in the nebulous, lofty ideals their parents were so concerned with, such as democracy and freedom.
You’ll, of course, find the echoes of this generational shift throughout the West, too. However, what I found especially remarkable in South Korea is that the attitude toward technology — a source of immense skepticism and nihilism in the U.S. — is overwhelmingly positive. Not only are robots everywhere, but they are welcomed as dependable, efficient, and predictable.
While living in Korea, I’ve often found it preferable to order at the automated kiosk or hand my dishes to the dish-collecting robot, so I don’t interrupt anyone at work. The robots at Incheon International Airport in Seoul, the museums in Daejeon, and the restaurants in Busan all switch easily between Korean and English, allowing me to navigate the country more easily. Robots and humans seem to work well together, and life runs smoothly.
According to the World Robotics Statistics released by the International Federation of Robotics in 2021, South Korea has the world’s highest robot density, with 932 robots per 10,000 employees in manufacturing. This stands in sharp contrast to the rest of the world, which has an average of 126 robots per 10,000 employees in manufacturing. The use of robots in Korea has expanded into the service industry in the past few years.
In a 2013 study on attitudes toward robots in South Korea, researchers “found that users’ attitudes toward service robots and the perceived usefulness of the service robots were the main determinants of the users’ intention to use the robots.” Moreover, they also “found that the need to belong had a moderate impact on users’ beliefs concerning service robots.”
Though more than a decade old, this study suggests that the cultural desire for belonging may be just as important as robot functionality in one’s attitude toward robots. As Jae-myoung Hong, the senior engineer of LG’s Smart Solutions Division, says, “In our view, artificial intelligence, robots and related solutions are not just new gadgets, but key technologies to support humans. . . . In some cases, robots may perform jobs that are too dangerous or too complicated for regular workers.”
Robots are functional in a practical way, and that alone may be their appeal. However, some scholars suggest that Koreans’ acceptance of robots may be more culturally embedded and might go beyond the appeal of efficiency. Kwang-yeong Shin, professor of sociology at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, argues that the cultural acceptance of robots in Korea may have more to do with the Korean shamanist attitudes toward nonliving things. “We can think that any kind of non-human being might have a spiritual or super power beyond human capacity, whether it is a natural object or artificial object.”
The cultural reverence for inanimate objects and an acknowledgment of their spiritual possibilities are present in both the Japanese and Korean contexts, and spiritual rituals in both countries embrace the spiritual significance of inanimate objects in everyday life. In Japan, there are Shinto shrines devoted to dolls, needles, golf, and every type of quotidian object. There are even Buddhist funerals for robotic pets, acknowledging the importance of their companionship to their families. Viewing humans and robots as sharing characteristics would imply that they have similar moral status.
One of the more interesting cross-cultural comparative studies on perceptions of robots found vast differences between American and Korean attitudes toward them, and that “Koreans preferred robots as assistants more than both Turkish and US participants, and as pets more than Turkish participants. Unlike Koreans, the majority of whom believed robots should have social roles (92 percent), most US participants saw robots as tools (53 percent).” Multiple studies find the same results: Asians tend to embrace robots and view them as useful, whereas Americans tend to be quite suspicious of them because they may displace humans in the workforce and challenge notions of human exceptionalism.
Whatever the reason, robots and AI are viewed quite positively in South Korea and Japan, and the dangerous apocalyptic narrative that surrounds their utilization in the United States simply doesn’t exist in Asia. In fact, the last time I went to Incheon Airport in Seoul to meet family coming to visit me in Korea, I met a roving information robot, gliding along the terminal in the ticketing area to answer questions people might have about the airport layout: where the restrooms are, what restaurants are available, and even where flights and check-in are located in the terminal.
A small toddler went up to the robot with her parents and talked to it. The robot’s large, friendly eyes and voice made it seem more approachable than the information desk often found at most airports. With a touchscreen that lets anyone choose a language to converse in with the robot, the language barrier is not a concern when seeking information. What this means, of course, is that Asia is leading the robot revolution and utilizing AI in some innovative and adaptive ways.
*
One of the most innovative uses of robots in the disability space can be found in the DAWN Avatar Café in Tokyo, Japan, which utilizes café robots remotely run by homebound disabled people to perform everyday tasks at the café and interact with people. The DAWN Avatar website states that it established the café for two primary reasons: to provide disabled people with a place to connect with others and to employ homebound disabled people, giving them a sense of purpose through financial independence.
The café has multiple robots throughout — from a greeter robot that helps you find your reservation and a table to a robot that sells merchandise, robots that serve food and drinks, a barista robot that makes coffee, and finally, smaller tabletop robots that accompany you in your meal, explaining the restaurant concept and providing companionship as you eat and drink.
DAWN Avatar Café in Tokyo, Japan
Next to each tabletop robot is a small picture of the person remotely operating it, where they live in Japan (the operators live throughout the country — not merely in Tokyo), and facts about themselves that they want to share with others visiting the café. I booked a reservation for dinner at DAWN Café with my daughter, and we were assigned a small table with a cute robot run by Koki Yanagida from his home in Kyoto. We were seated, then met Koki, who introduced himself, explained a little about the menu, took our orders, and relayed them to the kitchen.
I was excited to eat at DAWN Avatar Café because I love robots, but I was unprepared for the emotions I felt during this experience. DAWN’s website states that the primary purpose of the robot café is for patrons to develop a connection with its employees through the robots. But, to be quite honest, even as much as I love robots and feel generally positive toward them, I didn’t expect to come out of the experience with any sort of emotional connection. That feeling quickly changed, however, when I sat down to have dinner with my robot companion run by Koki.
Koki activated his robot, turning on its little eyes so we knew he was with us, and then told us about his life. Koki shared with us how shortly after he turned 18 and graduated high school, he was in a terrible car accident that left him paralyzed from the neck down, forestalling his dream of going off to college and leaving him unable to use his arms and legs. He operates his robot with his mouth through a small straw, which remotely controls all its movements.
The evening was particularly poignant because I was there with my daughter, who had just graduated from high school and was in the same stage of life as Koki when he had his accident. Koki asked my daughter about her plans to attend college and congratulated her on graduating from high school. I could tell she was deeply moved by his life circumstances and optimism.
At one point in our conversation, another robot passed by, and Koki called out to him, asking how he was doing. It was touching to see everyone interacting and checking in on each other. At the end of the evening, both my daughter and I felt sad to leave because we were so unexpectedly moved by the experience. Those who are not disabled don’t always see the value of — or even the possibilities for — the connections that technologies offer, particularly for those who may not be able to leave their home or get out and about on a regular basis.
In South Korea, robots are also being used for a phenomenon known as “lonely deaths,” which describes the contemporary phenomenon of seniors who live and die alone. In previous generations, it was common for older people to live with their children and grandchildren, but now an increasing number of older Koreans live alone in their later years. In fact, the Korea-EU Research Center reports that “the number of lonely deaths [in South Korea] soared from 1,669 in 2015 to 2,880 in 2020.”
To reduce lonely deaths and provide companionship more broadly, the government has been developing unique solutions. One of these is by equipping robots with Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, pieces of hardware that collect data and detect changes in the environment.
One government solution is the distribution of a robot called “Hyodol,” a cute little stuffed-person robot with big eyes and a friendly smile that provides companionship and personalized services, such as wake-up reminders and notifications to take medicine. The robot also sends a notification if it detects no movement for a certain period, and it sends emergency texts and calls if the user presses and holds its hand for more than three seconds. The robot comes preloaded with thousands of songs and various entertainment functions, including quizzes and games. Many users interact with their robots during mealtimes, and these conversations are tracked to monitor users and detect signs of cognitive decline.
Studies on Hyodol show that companion care robots work well alongside their human caregivers, providing an extra layer of support for those aging in place. In their 2023 study on Hyodol, Heesun Shin and Chihyung Jeon found that “robots do not substitute for human caregivers but displace or redistribute their tasks and responsibilities.” As AI’s capabilities continue to grow, care for the elderly will be an important area to watch, as the world’s population ages and traditional family structures can no longer be guaranteed to provide care as people age or to assist them in their dying.
In Japan, where the aging population is quickly growing, and the government expects to face a shortage of at least 380,000 caregivers by the year 2025, according to an article in NUVO, a sizable portion of the national budget has been allocated to the development of AI “carebots” geared toward both aging in place and palliative care.
The Honda Asimo can fetch a bowl of soup and carry it upstairs. Secom’s My Spoon can raise food to your mouth. The polar bear–like Riken Robear will soon be able to lift your body from the bed and carry you to the bathroom (the sweet-faced, 300 lb. bot is in beta mode until it learns to be more gentle with fragile skin). Once in the bathroom, Sanyo’s bathtub can wash and rinse you. The Cyberdyne Hybrid Assistive Limb (yes, that’s “HAL”) suit can detect the attempted movement of a weak limb, giving it a boost of power. The CT Asia Robotics Dinsow can remind you to take your pills and automatically answer the phone.
Assistive-care robots help the old and infirm with everyday tasks and expand current care options, reducing the stress on a healthcare system increasingly faced with the needs and demands of an aging population. With the breakdown of the intergenerational family structure in which families care for their aging parents and grandparents, the Japanese government is seeking to ease the burden on families and reduce reliance on human labor to fill the gaps. These companion robots can provide companionship, monitor one’s health, and aid with basic everyday needs, all while keeping elderly populations safe.
In addition to assistive-care robots, there are also religious robots that conduct Buddhist funerals. In Japan, funeral ceremony robots are seen as positive for two primary reasons: They are cheaper to hire than a human religious officiant (in 2017, The Guardian reported the average costs for hiring a religious officiant in Japan were $2,189, whereas a robot hired to conduct the exact same service is only $450), and they are generally more efficacious. Because they are robots, they generally recite the sutras and prayers correctly, ensuring that the deceased loved one is properly cared for during their last rites.
From an emotional perspective, robots are also generally less messy, and some people feel relief at not having to manage human interaction during their time of grief. Introduced at Tokyo’s Life Ending Expo in 2017, the cute bald robot named Pepper comes appropriately dressed in Buddhist robes and “can perform multiple functions such as chanting sutras, and even tapping a drum the same way a human Buddhist priest would.
Another interesting function of the robot priest is that it also provides live-streaming of the ceremony for people who are unable to attend.” While Pepper met with some success, the company that produced Pepper, SoftBank Group Corp., stopped production in 2020 due to layoffs and financial restructuring that included reducing its investment in robotics. So, it remains to be seen if robots will make a comeback in the funeral industry.
Another interesting development in religious robotics is an AI robot meant to replicate the speech, gestures, and movements of the deceased to help the bereaved deal with grief and mourning. Created by Etsuko Ichihara in Japan, Digital Shaman is a humanoid robot with a 3D-printed copy of someone’s face. In anticipation of their death, a person interacts with the robot beforehand so it can be trained to mimic their speech patterns and gestures.
After the person’s death, the robot is given to a mourner or mourners for 49 days (seven weeks of seven days is the traditional mourning period in Japanese Buddhism), but after that initial 49-day period, the robot is deprogrammed because Ichihara believes that otherwise the bereaved may not be able to move on. In this case, the robot becomes a digital stand-in for some of the more traditional aspects of a Buddhist funeral.
For the roboticist Ichihara, the ability to interact with a digital replica of a deceased loved one allows a mourner to process the death and ask the deceased questions as they begin their mourning. For her, this interaction with a digital replica is in many ways far less jarring than the interaction she herself experienced with the dead in the more traditional Buddhist funeral. She says, “I clearly remember a few things from the funeral. Makeup was applied on my dead grandmother’s face… We placed flowers in her coffin. After she was cremated, our family picked the bones out of her ashes. It was a shocking ritual.”
Inventions like Hyodol, Pepper, and Digital Shaman bring up important questions about human attitudes toward robots’ functions. If they serve as a stand-in or conduit for human care and do so effectively and economically, religious robots might be viewed positively, too. But most of my American colleagues are repulsed by this idea. In particular, they view religious robots like Pepper as too impersonal and perhaps encroaching on the very thing that makes us human.
However, I would argue that this view of religious robots as negative might be connected to thinking found in the Christian (and more specifically, Protestant) worldview, which places more value on religious belief than on religious practice. From a Christian point of view, what the robot does is of secondary importance to the fact that it is not, strictly speaking, a sentient being. This means the robot would be incapable of functioning in a religious way (for the Protestant, without the spirit, the robot has no religious animus to function authoritatively in the religious sphere).
To me, this is the crux of why Americans have such a hard time accepting robots and other new technologies into our everyday lives, and why our science fiction is filled with stories of humans versus robots. In the United States, robots are viewed as soulless, unlike in Asia, where they are viewed as soul-possible or soul-different. For those who cling to the notion of human exceptionalism, if robots could be viewed as sentient, then perhaps humans are not that special after all. Until we take seriously the ways in which our cultural and religious heritages inspire and impede our attitudes toward technologies, the development of these technologies will remain the realm of only a select few.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/what-america-could-learn-from-asias-robot-revolution/
*
MODERN WAR IS DRONE WARFARE
Over the Gulf region right now, relatively cheap Iranian drones are being taken out by costly and difficult-to-manufacture U.S. interceptor missiles. A typical Shahed-136 costs Tehran roughly $20,000 to $50,000, while interceptors, such as the Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), cost millions. That disparity has allowed Iran to drive up the cost of the conflict for the U.S., according to Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, a think tank aimed at enhancing international peace and security.
And after just a few weeks of fighting, there are already indications that the U.S. may run out of interceptors before Iran depletes its drone supply. Early in the war, U.S. officials who were not authorized to speak publicly told NPR that they are concerned about a lack of missile interceptors, and may have to draw from stockpiles outside the region. U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East, did not immediately respond to NPR for comment.
The drone attacks have been relentless. In the opening days of the conflict, six U.S. servicemembers were killed when an Iranian drone hit a U.S. operations center in Kuwait. Multiple petroleum facilities have come under drone attack in the UAE. Two Iranian drones smashed into the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, starting a fire. And just this week, the U.S. embassy in Iraq was also hit by a drone.
No military technology has reshaped warfare as dramatically in recent years as drones have. They vary widely in both cost and capability. On the upper end, there's the U.S.-made RQ-4 Global Hawk, a high-altitude surveillance drone used to gather intelligence and track targets over vast areas with a price tag of roughly $130 million. There's also the Shahed — an expendable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used to target U.S. military bases in the Gulf and linked to attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf. The design has proven so successful that even the U.S. has copied it, creating a Shahed-like drone, known as the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System, or LUCAS, which has already seen action in Iran.
At the other end of the spectrum are cheap quadcopters — such as consumer models that can be purchased online — refitted and repurposed by Ukraine for its war with Russia.
Drones have been used extensively by Israel in Gaza — so much so that Palestinians often refer to zanana, or the constant buzzing sound they make as they fly overhead during everyday life. The Israeli military uses them largely for surveillance, but has increasingly been using them for combat operations as well. Many eyewitnesses have told NPR that in the peak of the fighting back in 2024, Israel was commonly using so-called sniper drones to shoot Palestinians, including children. The Israeli military did not respond to NPR's repeated requests to verify its use of such technology.
Attack drones have also become a fixture of Sudan's ongoing civil war, where Iranian-made drones have been supplied to government forces for use against rebels, according to the Council on Foreign Relations' Global Conflict Tracker.
WAR IN UKRAINE BREAKS NEW GROUND FOR DRONE WARFARE
No conflict has done more to reshape the battlefield around drone technology than Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Massively outgunned at the start of the war, Kyiv's forces used off-the-shelf first-person view (FPV) drones, which use cameras to home in on targets and drop simple munitions on Russian tanks and armored vehicles — with stunning success.
"The Ukrainians were a bit ahead in terms of how they were using drones offensively," says Dara Massicot, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Russia and Eurasia program. Russia "scrambled," she says, and reached out to Iran to purchase Shaheds. Russia later purchased Iran's intellectual property from them, he says, and "then just took it in their own direction," producing its own version of the weapon known as the Geran.
In Ukraine, the moped-like buzz of propeller-driven Shaheds and Gerans has become ubiquitous. Russian forces have launched more than 57,000 of them at Ukrainian cities throughout the four-year war, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In response, Ukraine has fired thousands back at Russia.
The Ukrainians have pioneered a variety of methods of shooting down Shaheds and their Russian-built variants. They've shot them down with machine guns in mobile units on trucks, jammed them electronically and — most recently —intercepted them with other, inexpensive drones. Ukraine claims it has achieved about a 90% kill rate, and has offered to assist the U.S. with countering the Shaheds.
But in an interview Friday on Fox News, President Trump rebuffed an offer from Ukraine to assist U.S. forces in countering Shahed drones with Kyiv's homegrown, low-cost "Sting" interceptors. "We don't need their help in drone defense," Trump said. "We know more about drones than anybody. We have the best drones in the world, actually.”
Shaheds are still getting through missiles defenses
Since U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began last month, sophisticated U.S. missile-defense systems across the region have been pressed into service against Tehran's drone attacks — and they haven't been able to stop them all. In major Gulf cities, "we're seeing a kind of 'bunkerization' take hold as civilians increasingly have to shelter from this onslaught of drone attacks," says James Patton Rogers, executive director of Cornell University's Brooks Tech Policy Institute and a drone-warfare expert.
Strikes on the United Arab Emirates, which has borne the brunt of Iranian attacks in recent weeks, highlight just how extensively Tehran is relying on its drones. In a March 16 post on X, the UAE's Ministry of Defense that "Since the onset of the blatant Iranian aggression, UAE air defenses have engaged 304 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles and 1,627 UAVs."
A worker assesses the damage after a building was hit by a reported drone strike in Dubai on March 12.
For now, at least, the Pentagon has cited a drop in the rate of fire since the conflict began as an indicator that the U.S. is eliminating the threat of Shahed drones, mainly by destroying their launchers and factories on the ground. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday that the drone attacks by Iran are down 95% since the start of the war.
But Grieco from the Stimson Center says that doesn't mean the threat has gone away. "One possible explanation is that we have reduced their capacity and the number of drones that they have to shoot," she says. "There are other explanations for why that number may have dropped, which could be about tactical recalibration."
In the skies over the Gulf region right now, there are two air wars going on simultaneously, Grieco says — one high and one low. In the high-altitude fight, U.S. and Israeli jets are winning, as they suppress Iran's air defenses, destroy its buildings and kill its leadership. In the low-altitude air war, Iran is dominating with its Shaheds, which are threatening bases, infrastructure, and the Strait of Hormuz, she says.
Even so, the drones — especially the Shaheds — have proven difficult, but not impossible to intercept. "They're not necessarily that hard to kill once you see them," says Thomas Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But "they're hard to see," he says, adding: "They may cross the horizon relatively late and be flying rather low."
Iran's drone threat shouldn't have come as a surprise, experts say
Multiple experts point out that the U.S. had ample evidence ahead of the war in Iran that drones like Shaheds would be a significant threat, particularly given recent history in Ukraine.
A Ukrainian explosives expert examines parts of a Shahed-136 military drone that fell down following an attack in Kharkiv on June 4, 2025.
And the effectiveness of inexpensive drones has received considerable attention from U.S. military planners in recent years, with numerous conferences, workshops and working groups focusing on the issue, Massicot says. "For some reason that didn't translate into executing low-cost layered defenses at some of these facilities," she says, referring to U.S. bases in the Gulf region. "Now we're doing it in real time … scrambling to get it done when it could have been done before."
As a result, the U.S. and its allies in the Gulf have thus far fallen short in fielding a truly multi-layered defense. Such a system combines interceptor missiles and even missile-equipped jet fighters with point-defense systems that could be as simple as a .50 caliber machine gun on the ground to protect specific sites, Massicot says. It's the last part, "something on the ground to intercept leakers" that the U.S. seems to have missed, she adds.
Massicot says it is increasingly likely that drones will take over some of the combat functions performed today by humans. "What they can do is free up human labor for things that really need … a human eye," she says.
Rogers notes that "there's lots of discussions about a drone revolution that's taking place" with a key lesson being the experience in Ukraine. "The trouble is, there's a problem with that lesson," he says. Instead of achieving victory for either Ukraine or Russia, the result has been a "brutal attritional stalemate."
Although the Shahed is catching headlines today, ultimately "it's not any particular drone that is transformative," Karako says.
The proliferation of drones on the battlefield, though, represents "a new chapter of air power," and "a new chapter of air defense."
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/18/nx-s1-5749441/drones-iran-us-ukraine-epic-fury
*
BASQUE LANGUAGE, A LINGUISTIC ISOLATE
In the Basque Country, hundreds of thousands of people speak a language so ancient that its word for "knife" literally translates to "stone."
This language has absolutely no known relatives on Earth. While linguists have identified several language isolates globally—such as the ancient Sumerian language of Mesopotamia or the Ainu language of northern Japan—Basque, known to its speakers as Euskara, is widely considered the most famous.
The primary reason Basque captures so much attention is its status as the sole surviving pre-Indo-European language in Western Europe. Thousands of years ago, the Indo-European language family swept across the continent, eventually evolving into the Germanic, Romance, and Slavic languages spoken by billions today. As these new tongues spread, older indigenous languages were entirely wiped out or assimilated. Basque is the only exception. It survived the influx of Celtic tribes, the expansion of the Roman Empire, and the later spread of Spanish and French.
Linguistically, Euskara operates completely differently from the languages surrounding it. It is an ergative-absolutive language, meaning it marks the subjects of transitive verbs differently than the subjects of intransitive verbs—a feature virtually absent in the rest of Europe. Its vocabulary also offers tantalizing hints about its antiquity. Expanding on its Stone Age roots, linguists point out that traditional Basque words for cutting tools, such as aizto (knife) and aitzur (hoe), share the root haitz, which means "stone" or "rock." This suggests that the language's foundational vocabulary was formed long before the use of metal.
The survival of Basque is largely attributed to geography and strategic diplomacy. The mountainous terrain of the Basque Country provided a natural fortress that deterred large-scale invasions and migrations. When the Romans arrived, the Basque people frequently negotiated alliances rather than fighting to the bitter end, allowing them to maintain a degree of self-governance and protect their cultural identity while neighboring regions were heavily Romanized.
Today, Euskara is spoken by roughly a million people. Despite being surrounded by dominant global languages, it remains a thriving, modern tongue that continues to baffle linguists and historians. It stands as a living relic, offering a rare, unbroken link to the ancient peoples who inhabited Europe long before recorded history began. ~ Quora
*
THE SURPRISING DOWNSIDES OF CYNICISM
Being generally suspicious of others inhibits cynics' social lives, researchers found.
Cynicism, or being generally distrusting of others' motives, may seem smart in certain scenarios. A way to avoid heartbreak or being conned, perhaps – and certainly far less risky than always assuming the best of others.
But research has found that being extremely cynical does surprisingly little to protect against lies and scams. What's more, having a darker view of human nature may make you even more likely to suffer disappointment and betrayal.
Here's how to avoid the downsides of cynicism – without being hoodwinked.
Imagine you've agreed to meet up with a new acquaintance, who – you hope – might become a good friend. You arrive at the bar but they fail to turn up at the agreed time. You sit, nursing your cocktail, feeling the tick of time passing with every fiber of your being. After half an hour, you give up and leave.
When you are on the road, you receive a message: "Sorry! My brother's just had a car accident and I need to help him. Can we rearrange for another day?"
Do you give them the benefit of the doubt, offer sympathy, and fix a new date? Or do you assume that they are lying, block them from your contacts and tell yourself the situation just confirms what you've always known: people are fundamentally unreliable?
Your instinctive reaction to scenarios like this may be far more revealing than you imagine.
Over the past two decades, scientists have become increasingly interested in measuring people's trust in others and its wider consequences. Surprisingly, they have found that extremely cynical dispositions do little to protect people from lies and scams, but also have the added drawback of inhibiting the cynics' social lives.
While there is no foolproof way to tell who is and isn't trustworthy, the latest research offers some techniques to avoid being hoodwinked while maintaining our faith in humanity. From seeking out the good in others to shifting your mindset, read on to learn how you can protect yourself without the harm of cynicism.
Detecting lies
In the late 1990s, psychologists began using the general trust scale to measure people's overriding opinions about others' nature. You can get a flavor of it here, by rating the following statements from one (completely disagree) to five (completely agree).
• Most people are basically honest
• Most people are trustworthy
• Most people are basically good-natured and kind
You may assume that the highest scorers would be easy to dupe – but this belief is largely unfounded.
Take a recent study in which participants were tasked with watching a series of recorded interviews before determining who was telling the truth and who was lying. Rather astonishingly, the participants' scores on the general trust scale had no influence over their ability to spot the bad actors: the most suspicious were no less likely to be duped than the most trusting.
What's more, the participants all made very similar mistakes, regardless of their opinions about humanity as a whole. In fact, the study confirmed previous research showing that most people have "truth bias", which is the natural tendency to assume that a claim is genuine – and the levels of general trust did not affect this.
Detecting lies from body language and facial expressions is, of course, notoriously difficult – even for police officers. "The behavioral signals distinguishing truths from lies are often too weak and unreliable to be learned or observed from everyday experience," says David Markowitz, a professor of communication at Michigan State University in the US, and a co-author of the research.
Timothy Levine, a professor of communication at the University of Oklahoma in the US, who led the study, puts it even more bluntly: "There is no signal to detect because signals are inconsistent from communicator to communicator."
My tell, in other words, will be very different from your tell – meaning that a stranger will struggle to read anything meaningful from our non-verbal behavior, no matter how trusting or cynical they are.
Scam awareness
Scams are a little different. If you receive an email from a foreign prince offering to offload a huge sum into your bank account, it's almost certainly too good to be true – even if you think that most people are honest. And you might be even less likely to believe them if you find that their email address is a series of digits that masks their true identity.
It is our capacity to pick up those cues that determines our overall "gullibility", according to recent research by psychologist Alessandra Teunisse. While completing a doctorate at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, she designed a Gullibility Scale that asked participants to rate statements such as:
• If anyone is likely to fall for a scam, it's me
• I'm not that good at reading the signs that someone is trying to manipulate me
• People think I'm a little naïve
In one deliciously devious study, she recruited participants to take the questionnaire before sending them a series of fake phishing emails over the next few months. "The people who clicked on the hyperlinks in those emails had significantly higher scores on the Gullibility Scale than those who did not click on that link," says Teunisse.
Crucially, this bore almost no relation to their scores on the Generalized Trust Scale, supporting the idea that we can think the best of humanity without leaving ourselves vulnerable to other people's trickery. "You can be highly trusting, but the second you see a cue that signals that something isn't right, you re-evaluate the situation," Teunisse explains.
Elevated feelings
Such conclusions align with new research on elevation – the uplifting emotion we feel when we see extraordinarily virtuous or altruistic acts, such as someone risking their own life to save another's.
Since numerous experiments have shown that experiencing elevation inspires people to act more pro-socially, Anne Hamby, an associate professor in consumer psychology at Boise State University in the US, wondered whether it would also render them more gullible. "The initial hypothesis was that, when people are elevated, they're feeling this warm buzz with the view that humanity is wonderful, so maybe we can dupe them a little bit more readily," Hamby says. "But after a few studies, we kept finding the reverse effect."
In experiment after experiment, people who were feeling "elevated" tended to be better at detecting scams. They were more likely to discern the false claims in a dubious advert for an herbal medicine, for instance.
Hamby suspects that after viewing the extraordinary acts of generosity, people were simply more likely to think about people's motives, both good and bad. Detecting deception, Hamby says, is "an intelligence… an ability to discern what's actually unfolding in a persuasion context". And – as Teunisse had also discovered – that is perfectly compatible with a generally optimistic outlook.
A self-fulfilling prophecy
Without any benefits for deception detection, universal cynicism may only harm our social relationships, as Eric Neumann recently discovered during his PhD at Stanford University.
He was inspired by personal experience. "My default is to trust people," says Neumann, but when he has his goodwill betrayed, he tends to worry that he has been too trusting for his own good. "Sometimes it feels like, oh my God, I'm too naïve," he says.
That's why he started to wonder whether people's attitudes to trust might become self-fulfilling prophecies. By showing faith in others, we may gain their goodwill and encourage them to behave more honestly around us, in turn reinforcing our positive beliefs. If, however, we always suspect the worst, people could end up living down to those expectations, which only confirms our pessimism.
So Neumann developed the Self-Fulfilling Trust Mindset questionnaire, with statements like the following:
When people feel that you trust them, they actually become more trustworthy
When you trust people, that brings out their most trustworthy behavior
He found people who scored high on the Self-Fulfilling Trust Mindset tended to score higher on the general trust scale and a host of other measures examining people’s faith in human nature. "They're less skeptical of people in general, but they also tend to have more empathy, less malicious envy and less contempt for other people," says Neumann. And this can have a powerful effect on the outcomes of their interactions with others.
For example, Neumann took advantage of a classic two-player game commonly used in psychology to test cooperative behavior. In each round, one of the players (the sender) is given a small amount of cash, which they can donate to the other (the receiver). The sender knows that the experimenter will triple whatever sum they have given, and that the receiver will have the opportunity to return a portion of their earnings back to the sender.
As you can imagine, the sender's trust will determine how generous they are – they don't want to give away most of their endowment and receive nothing in return. And the receiver's views can shape how much they give back. If they feel insulted by the amount they have been given, they may choose to return nothing.
For these reasons, Neumann suspected that senders primed with the Self-Fulfilling Trust Mindset would be more generous in their initial offers, and that their good faith would then be rewarded by the receiver. And that is exactly what he found: the game brought out the most cooperative behavior from both parties.
Our trust mindsets can also shape how well we connect with other people. In a further laboratory experiment that has yet to undergo peer review, Neumann asked some participants to read a popular science article about how trust is often repaid, before pairing them off for a five-minute chat. He found that these participants were more willing to engage in deeper conversations, rather than sticking to small talk – compared with participants who had read an article reaffirming the idea that someone's behavior is fixed and unlikely to change with our treatment of them.
That's especially significant since self-disclosure is one of the best predictors of lasting social connection. Sure enough, these pairs were more optimistic about their potential to become friends in the future.
Soothing a burn
Exactly how you apply these psychological findings will depend on knowing your disposition. "Forewarned is forearmed," says Teunisse. The ideal would be to arm yourself with the skills to detect deception when the cues are there, while maintaining a generally high level of trust.
If you think that you already err on the side of gullibility, Teunisse suggests checking with others whenever you have any doubts. "It might be worth having a trusted person on call when you need to make important decisions," she recommends.
If you find that life has left you cynical, you might look for ways to cultivate a more trusting mindset, considering all the benefits that it might bring to your social interactions. This may include lowering your defenses. "I'm coming to learn more and more that it really has to be this embodied learning," Neumann says. "So if we really want to overcome our distrust, the mindset is the first step, but then you actually have to go out and do it." That's especially worth remembering if you've just been burnt.
For instance, let's go back to that last-minute cancelled appointment. If you would usually assume the worst, perhaps this time you might try to suspend judgment and arrange another meeting. Maybe it'll be in the hope that your honesty will be rewarded with greater sincerity from the other side. Over time, you may begin to see enough evidence of others' goodness that you find your cynicism replaced by resilience.
"You can learn that even if you are betrayed again, you can deal with it and move on from it," says Neumann.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260330-is-it-better-to-be-naive-or-cynical-science-can-finally-offer-some-answers?at_objective=awareness&at_ptr_type=email&at_email_send_date=20260401&at_send_id=4574863&at_link_title=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bbc.com%2ffuture%2farticle%2f20260330-is-it-better-to-be-naive-or-cynical-science-can-finally-offer-some-answers&at_bbc_team=crm&at_audience_id=266492954
*
“DON’T SHOOT TILL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THEIR EYES!”
In “Barry Lyndon,” there is a battle in which British soldiers march forward, allowing the French to shoot them, never firing back. Why did soldiers do this?
Walking into incoming gunfire without retaliating looks like suicidal madness. But on an 18th-century battlefield, refusing to shoot back was the most mathematically sound way to win.
The stoic march of the British infantry in Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon is a precise depiction of how European armies optimized the deeply flawed weapons of the time. The primary weapon of the era was the smoothbore flintlock musket. Because the barrels lacked internal rifling, the spherical lead balls bounced along the inside of the weapon and exited on highly unpredictable trajectories. Beyond 75 yards, hitting a man-sized target was largely a matter of luck. Furthermore, the black powder used in these weapons created massive clouds of thick, white smoke with every shot.
Because individual marksmanship was virtually impossible, commanders relied on massed volley fire. The goal was to group hundreds of men tightly together and have them fire simultaneously, creating a dense wall of lead. To make this volley devastating, a commanding officer needed his unit to be as close to the enemy as physically possible—often under 50 yards.
Strict military doctrine dictated that soldiers must endure the enemy's premature, long-range fire in silence. By marching steadily forward, a regiment preserved its carefully loaded first volley.
The objective was to close the distance to point-blank range, halt, deliver a crippling, synchronized blast of fire directly into the enemy line, and immediately follow up with a bayonet charge through the smoke. The side that maintained the discipline to hold its fire until the last possible second almost always broke the enemy's morale and won the field. ~ Sepia Glyphs, Quora
*
MARS ROVER’S LAST WORDS:
“My battery is low and it's getting dark.”
Mars sunset
*
THE ORIGIN OF “THREE SQUARE”
Your body doesn't actually need breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The three-meal schedule isn't a biological imperative—it's a strict byproduct of 19th-century factory whistles.
The three-meal structure truly solidified during the Industrial Revolution. As populations moved from agrarian lifestyles—where eating could be flexibly scheduled around farm chores—to strict factory shifts in cities, daily habits had to adapt to the clock. Workers required a meal before their long shift began (breakfast), a scheduled mid-day break to refuel (lunch), and a substantial meal after returning home in the evening (dinner). The modern workday dictated modern eating patterns.
As for the specific phrase "square meal," it emerged in the United States around the mid-19th century. A popular historical myth claims the term originated from sailors eating off square wooden plates on British warships. However, linguists and historians point out that the adjective "square" was commonly used in 19th-century American slang to mean "honest," "substantial," or "proper"—much like a "square deal." Miners during the California Gold Rush and soldiers during the American Civil War frequently used the term to describe a filling, proper meal after enduring days of meager rations.
By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, dietary reformers and the growing packaged food industry began aggressively promoting the three-meal routine, heavily marketing breakfast as an essential start to a productive day. Through a combination of factory whistles, linguistic trends, and modern marketing, eating three square meals transformed from an industrial necessity into a global cultural norm. ~ Mosaic Palate, Quora
John Blakey:
On a tour of a 19th Century wooden sailing ship in the UK, the guides told us that the crew ate off wooden plates which they made themselves. A wooden square was used to fit over the plates to make sure they were of a uniform size to stop extra food being issued.
Scott Casey:
The industrial revolution also introduced morning and afternoon tea, a light snack between breakfast and lunch and between lunch and dinner.
*
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS VS THE MASORETIC BIBLE
The
Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24
books of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text
defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its
vocalization and accentuation known as the masora. ~ Wikipedia
~ The Dead Sea Scrolls do confirm that the Bible was once polytheistic with multiple gods.
The
Dead Sea Scrolls contradict the Bible in many places, with most of the
contradictions being fairly minor, but some being vastly significant.
There is, for example, concrete evidence that the Levite scribes who
wrote, redacted and controlled the “official” scrolls deliberately
changed their version of the Bible for specific reasons, which I will
cover herein.
The biggest changes made by the Levite scribes to the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, and thus to the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, could shake the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity. What follows is a brief “snapshot” after which I will provide the actual texts and highlight the differences in due course.
THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
1. The deliberate alteration of Elohim, which means “sons of god,” to “sons of Israel” in a clumsy and “makes no sense” attempt to hide the Bible’s polytheistic roots.
2. Removing “bow down to him, all ye gods” for the same reason.
These first two changes, occurring so closely together in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, cannot be accidental.
We have always been told (or sold) that the Bible is monotheistic. But it turns out that the Bible was originally polytheistic, and I provide corroborating evidence within the redacted Bible as well as evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).
3. Changing a reference to two Messiahs — one princely and one priestly — to a single Messiah.
4. Changing the reason for the Sabbath from the Exodus to the seven days of creation. We know from archaeology and extra-biblical texts that major “laws of Moses” were not being followed in Judea prior the the second century BC, including strict Sabbath observance, so this could have been a very late alteration.
5. Changing “loving god” to “fearing god.” That’s quite a turnaround! The Levites were very big on using the “wrath of god” to terrify people into obedience to their control freak whims.
6. Fixing the mathematical problem of Methuselah living after the Great Flood despite not being on Noah’s ark
There are many more differences, but these are the “big six” in my opinion. If you know of anything of greater magnitude, please do inform me in the comments.
There is no need to take my word that the scribes were changing the Bible on purpose. Let’s consult the experts…
The prophet Jeremiah called out the scribes for corrupting the Bible with a “lying pen”:
How
can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when
actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah
8:8 NIV)
The “law of the Lord” was the most important part of the Bible, because it told the Israelites what they should and should not do. But what Jeremiah actually said was *much stronger and sterner* because he said the scribes had corrupted the *torah yhwh*, so he was apparently speaking of the Torah of Yahweh, the Bible itself.
But in
either case, monkeying with either the Bible of Yahweh or the Law of
Yahweh was a gargantuan thing to do and strongly suggests that the the
scribes either knew that what they were writing did *not* come from
Yahweh, or that *they held nothing sacred*. Surely no true believer
would dare change the word of Yahweh, or even think to do so, if they
knew it came from him.
Two prophets, Jeremiah and Amos, said god
did *NOT* command animal sacrifices at the time of Moses and they thus
accused the Levites of changing the Bible to benefit themselves. Why?
Because with animal sacrifices the Levites got to eat the best cuts of
meat without working like everyone else.
Jeremiah specifically
denied that god ordained animal sacrifices during the Exodus, when the
Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law were allegedly given to Moses:
Thus
saith Yahweh of hosts, god of Israel: “Add your burnt-offerings to your
sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought your
ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did *not* speak to them or command
them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices. (Jeremiah 7:22)
The
prophet Amos agreed with Jeremiah that deceitful Levites had changed the
Bible to demand animal sacrifices. Amos asked ironically and
rhetorically on Yahweh’s behalf:
“Did you [indeed] bring me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?” (Amos 5:25)
Seven
biblical prophets *denied* that Yahweh desired animal sacrifices, often
in blistering terms: Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Samuel and
King David. (Amos 5:21-25, Hosea 6:6, Isaiah 1:11-15, Jeremiah 7:22,
14:12, Micah 6:6-8, 1 Samuel 15:22, Psalm 40:6, 51:16)
Ezekiel
went further than Jeremiah and Amos, by agreeing with archaeologists and
historians that the Israelites originated in Canaan and that there
never was an Exodus:
Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy
birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an
Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. (Ezekiel 16:3)
Knowing these prophets were aware of scribes corrupting the Bible, we should not be surprised that the oldest complete manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient manuscripts, such as the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, confirm that *major changes* have, indeed, been made to the Masoretic Text, which became the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
Modern
Bible scholarship agrees with the prophets Amos, Ezekiel and Jeremiah:
“The Dead Sea Scrolls have eroded the notion of the Masoretic Text as
the sole authoritative rendition of the Hebrew Bible.” (Scripture
Analysis)
As James D. Tabor observed, there are “*thousands of
variations*” with some “*very significant differences*.” Tabor has
YouTube videos on his top ten differences, with slides highlighting
major differences in the texts. Tabor’s videos are highly recommended.
But this page gives a good overview, especially of the most significant
differences and why they matter so much. And in some cases I go into
more detail than Tabor.
THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE
By far *the most shocking difference* between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Bible can be found in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which discusses how the 70 nations named in the Bible’s table of nations (Genesis chapters 10-11) were apportioned to the *Elohim*, the 70 sons of god, with Yahweh at that time being *not* the supreme god but one of the 70 sons of the supreme god El.
At this time Yahweh received Jacob (i.e., Israel) as his inheritance. This crucial verse tells us two very important things: (1) that the Bible was once *polytheistic*, and (2) that Yahweh began as a tribal god who was subordinate to the supreme god El.
The perfect pairing of the 70 nations with the 70 sons of god, and the fact that El appears in prominent biblical names like Israel, the archangels Michael and Gabriel, the prophets Daniel, Elijah, Elisha, Samuel, Ezekiel and Joel, place names like Bethel (“house of god”), and Emmanuel, which Christians claim to be the prophesied name of the Messiah, seals the deal on biblical polytheism for me.
If the Israelites had known since the time of Moses that the real name of god was Yahweh, then of course children consecrated to god would have been given Yah names like Yehoshua (Joshua). But the El names are more numerous and go back further in time, as far as the names Israel and Ishmael, the forefathers of the Israelites and Arabs according to tradition, telling us that El was the Bible’s first supreme god.
A few verses later in the same chapter we find further confirmation, in Deuteronomy 32:43, where the Levite scribes who controlled the biblical texts scrubbed “*bow down to him, all ye gods*” and changed “sons” (meaning the Elohim, the sons of god) to “servants” or, more accurately, “slaves.” Elsewhere, some translations, including Hebrews 1:6, have “angels.”
But why would anyone remove angels or servants/slaves from the text? The obvious reason for the Levite erasure was their intention to remove references to other gods from the Bible.
Nothing could be clearer: *the Levite scribes were deliberately removing polytheism from the Bible, to make the redacted Bible seem like a monotheistic book*.
In previous comments it was argued that Elohim “hints” at “enlightened beings.”
Elohim doesn’t “hint” because we know who the Elohim were. The Elohim were the 70 sons and daughters of the supreme god El and his consort Asherah, whose titles included Holy Lady and Queen of Heaven. The Bible verifies this divine family in its table of nations (Genesis 10-11), where there are exactly 70 nations, and in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where the Most High God, El Elyon, grants the nations to his children, the Elohim, like a king bequeathing his lands to his offspring. After which Yahweh observes that “his people, Jacob (Israel)” are the “lot of his inheritance.” *If Yahweh is a god, so are the other Elohim*.
And this explains the bible’s multiple references to a divine council of gods:
“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the *gods* he holds judgment.” (Psalms 82:1)
“I have said, *Ye are gods* and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalms 82:6)
The verse above should properly be read as: “Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High God [El Elyon].”
Psalm 82 tells us how the authors of the bible demoted the other gods and put Yahweh in charge of everything:
Yahweh judges the other gods and finds them lacking because they don’t deliver the poor from the wicked. Never mind that Yahweh will have the exact same problem for the next 3,000+ years, as pointed out by the wise king Solomon and prophets like Hosea, who chastised him rather liberally, pun intended. (Psalms 82:1-5)
Yahweh condemns the other gods to die, like human princes, making him the only god, at least according to the Levite author. (Psalms 82:6-7)
Yahweh, being the only god left, inherits all nations, rather than just Israel. (Psalms 82:8)
Here
we have the scheme in a nutshell, pun intended. The problem with the
nutty scheme is that Yahweh had no more power to deliver the poor and
oppressed than any other human-created “god.”
“The heavens praise your wonders, LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones [gods]. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [gods]? In the council of the holy ones [gods] God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him." (Psalm 89:5-7)
In the opening chapters of the book of Job, the supreme god is depicted as twice presiding over a gathering of the sons of god. (Job 1-2)
In the opening chapter of Genesis we hear El saying to the Elohim, “Let *us* [plural] make mankind in *our* [plural] own likeness.” (Genesis 1:27)
Unless god is a hermaphrodite, women were made in the image of goddesses like Asherah and her daughters the war goddess Anat (aka Anath) and the sun goddess Shapash (aka Shapshu and Shamash).
If a sufficiently ancient Genesis scroll is ever found, I predict its narrator will respond: “So the *gods* created mankind in *their* own image, in the likeness of the *gods* created *they* them; male and female created *they* them.” (Genesis 1:27)
On an amusing note, it turns out that god had a wife.
When Yahweh replaced El as the supreme god, he inherited El’s consort, Asherah, as his wife. We know this from multiple archaeological artifacts which mention “Yahweh and his Asherah” and even depict them together. I blush to mention that Yahweh, in the forefront, was very well-endowed.
*
The Levites were clumsy editors and they failed to erase other polytheistic Bible verses:
* “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among *the gods*.” (Psalm 82:1)
* “I have said, *Ye are gods*; and all of you are children of the most High.” (Psalm 82:1)
The “most high” god was El Elyon and he was speaking to the Elohim.
In
Psalm 82 we see a divine council of the Sons of God, the Elohim, with
the supreme God presiding. In the original Bible the supreme God was El,
but in the redacted Bible the supreme God became Yahweh. The divine
council of the Elohim also appears in the first two chapters of Job,
where Satan is not a “fallen angel” but is welcome in heaven as one of
the Elohim.
There have been attempts to demote the Elohim to the
lower status of angels, mighty ones, holy ones, saints, and even
servants/slaves, by translators with theological agendas, but anyone who
has studied the various ancient religions of the Middle East knows
Baal, Marduk, et al, were gods, not “angels.”
In fact, Baal and Marduk became the *supreme deity* in their respective pantheons by defeating a multi-headed sea monster. Amusingly, so did Yahweh, by defeating the multi-headed sea monster Leviathan, hacking it to pieces, and feeding its flesh to the Israelites in the wilderness. (Psalm 74:14)
Yahweh
doesn’t say there are no other gods, just that they were made for other
nations to worship, not Israel. This is why Yahweh is a “jealous god.”
He doesn’t want his people worshiping gods who were assigned to other
nations.
~ Michael Burch, Quora
Oriana:
Michael’s post goes on and on, but I think we already have enough here to ponder.
A respected source on the Dead Sea Scrolls is Dr. James Tabor. Here is an AI "overview" of Dr. Tabor: Dr. James Tabor, a biblical scholar, emphasizes that the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal an apocalyptic, messianic Jewish community (likely Essenes) with deep thematic connections to the early Jesus movement.
He compares the two, highlighting shared practices like community
living, purification rites, and a "new covenant" ideology, while
acknowledging they are distinct, non-identical movements separated by
about 150 years.
*
WHY HUMANS SLEEP LESS THAN OTHER PRIMATES
On dry nights, the San hunter-gatherers of Namibia often sleep under the stars. They have no electric lights or new Netflix releases keeping them awake. Yet when they rise in the morning, they haven’t gotten any more hours of sleep than a typical Western city-dweller who stayed up doom-scrolling on their smartphone.
Research has shown that people in non-industrial societies — the closest thing to the kind of setting our species evolved in — average less than seven hours a night, says evolutionary anthropologist David Samson at the University of Toronto Mississauga. That’s a surprising number when you consider our closest animal relatives.
Humans sleep less than any ape, monkey or lemur that scientists have studied. Chimps sleep around 9.5 hours out of every 24. Cotton-top tamarins sleep around 13. Three-striped night monkeys are technically nocturnal, though really, they’re hardly ever awake — they sleep for 17 hours a day.
Samson calls this discrepancy the human sleep paradox. “How is this possible, that we’re sleeping the least out of any primate?” he says. Sleep is known to be important for our memory, immune function and other aspects of health. A predictive model of primate sleep based on factors such as body mass, brain size and diet concluded that humans ought to sleep about 9.5 hours out of every 24, not seven. “Something weird is going on,” Samson says.
Research by Samson and others in primates and non-industrial human populations has revealed the various ways that human sleep is unusual. We spend fewer hours asleep than our nearest relatives, and more of our night in the phase of sleep known as rapid eye movement, or REM. The reasons for our strange sleep habits are still up for debate but can likely be found in the story of how we became human.
From canopy bed to snail’s shell
Millions of years ago, our ancestors lived, and probably slept, in trees. Today’s chimpanzees and other great apes still sleep in temporary tree beds or platforms. They bend or break branches to create a bowl shape, which they may line with leafy twigs. (Apes such as gorillas sometimes also build beds on the ground.)
Our ancestors transitioned out of the trees to live on the ground, and at some point started sleeping there too. This meant giving up all the perks of arboreal sleep, including relative safety from predators like lions.
Fossils of our ancestors don’t reveal how well-rested they were. So to learn about how ancient humans slept, anthropologists study the best proxy they have: contemporary non-industrial societies.
“It’s an amazing honor and opportunity to work with these communities,” says Samson, who has worked with the Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania, as well as with various groups in Madagascar, Guatemala and elsewhere. Study participants generally wear a device called an Actiwatch, which is similar to a Fitbit with an added light sensor, to record their sleep patterns.
Gandhi Yetish, a human evolutionary ecologist and anthropologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, has also spent time with the Hadza, as well as the Tsimane in Bolivia and the San in Namibia. In a 2015 paper, he assessed sleep across all three groups and found that they averaged between only 5.7 and 7.1 hours.
Humans, then, seem to have evolved to need less sleep than our primate relatives. Samson showed in a 2018 analysis that we did this by lopping off non-REM time. REM is the sleep phase most associated with vivid dreaming. That means, assuming other primates dream similarly, we may spend a larger proportion of our night dreaming than they do.
We’re also flexible about when we get those hours of shut-eye.
To tie together the story of how human sleep evolved, Samson laid out what he calls his social sleep hypothesis in the 2021 Annual Review of Anthropology. He thinks the evolution of human sleep is a story about safety — specifically, safety in numbers. Brief, flexibly timed REM-dense sleep likely evolved because of the threat of predation when humans began sleeping on the ground, Samson says. And he thinks another key to sleeping safely on land was snoozing in a group.
“We should think of early human camps and bands as like a snail’s shell,” he says. Groups of humans may have shared simple shelters. A fire might have kept people warm and bugs away. Some group members could sleep while others kept watch.
“Within the safety of this social shell, you could come back and catch a nap at any time,” Samson imagines. (He and Yetish differ, however, on the prevalence of naps in today’s non-industrial groups. Samson reports frequent napping among the Hadza and a population in Madagascar. Yetish says that, based on his own experiences in the field, napping is infrequent.)
Samson also thinks these sleep shells would have facilitated our ancient ancestors’ journey out of Africa and into colder climates. In this way, he sees sleep as a crucial subplot in the story of human evolution.
As special as we seem?
It makes sense that the threat of predators may have led humans to sleep less than tree-living primates, says Isabella Capellini, an evolutionary ecologist at Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland. In a 2008 study, she and her colleagues found that mammals at greater risk of predation sleep less, on average.
But Capellini isn’t sure that human sleep is as different from that of other primates as it seems. She points out that existing data about sleep in primates come from captive animals. “We still don’t know much about how animals sleep in the wild,” she says.
In a zoo or lab, animals might sleep less than is natural, because of stress. Or they might sleep more, Capellini says, “just because animals are that bored.” And the standard laboratory conditions — 12 hours of light, 12 hours of dark — might not match what an animal experiences in nature throughout the year.
Neuroscientist Niels Rattenborg, who studies bird sleep at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany, agrees that Samson’s narrative about the evolution of human sleep is interesting. But, he says, “I think it depends a lot on whether we have measured sleep in other primates accurately.”
And there’s reason to suspect we haven’t. In a 2008 study, Rattenborg and colleagues attached EEG devices to three wild sloths and found that the animals slept about 9.5 hours per day. An earlier study of captive sloths, on the other hand, had recorded nearly 16 daily hours of sleep.
Having data from more wild animals would help sleep researchers. “But it’s technically challenging to do this,” Rattenborg says. “Although sloths were compliant with the procedure, I have a feeling primates would spend a lot of time trying to take the equipment off.”
If scientists had a clearer picture of primate sleep in the wild, it might turn out that human sleep isn’t as exceptionally short as it seems. “Every time there is a claim that humans are special about something, once we start having more data, we realize they’re not that special,” Capellini says.
A chimpanzee family in Tanzania. Evolutionary anthropologist David Samson thinks humans evolved to sleep in the company of others.Fireside chats
Yetish, who studies sleep in small-scale societies, has collaborated with Samson on research. “I do think that social sleep, as he describes it, is a solution to the problem of maintaining safety at night,” Yetish says. However, he adds, “I don’t think it’s the only solution.”
He notes that the Tsimane sometimes have walls on their houses, for example, which would provide some safety without a human lookout. And Yetish has had people in the groups he studies tell him in the morning exactly which animals they heard during the night. Sounds wake most people at night, offering another possible layer of protection.
Sleeping in groups, predator threats or not, is also a natural extension of the way that people in small-scale societies live during the day, Yetish says. “In my opinion, people are almost never alone in these types of communities.”
Yetish describes a typical evening with the Tsimane: After spending the day working on various tasks, a group comes together around a fire while food is cooked. They share a meal, then linger by the fire in the dark. Children and mothers gradually move away to sleep, while others stay awake, talking and telling stories.
And so Yetish suggests that ancient humans may have traded some hours of sleep for sharing information and culture around a dwindling fire. “You’ve suddenly made these darkness hours quite productive,” he says. Our ancestors may have compressed their sleep into a shorter period because they had more important things to do in the evenings than rest.
Unsatisfied sleepers
How much we sleep is a different question, of course, from how much we wish we slept.
Samson and others asked Hadza study participants how they felt about their own sleep. Out of 37 people, 35 said they slept “just enough,” the team reported in 2017. The average amount they slept in that study was about 6.25 hours a night. But they awoke frequently, needing more than 9 hours in bed to get those 6.25 hours of shut-eye.
By contrast, a 2016 study of almost 500 people in Chicago found they spent nearly all of their time in bed actually asleep, and got at least as much total sleep as the Hadza. Yet almost 87 percent of respondents in a 2020 survey of US adults said that on at least one day per week, they didn’t feel rested.
Why not? Samson and Yetish say our sleep problems may have to do with stress or out-of-whack circadian rhythms. Or maybe we’re missing the crowd we evolved to sleep with, Samson says. When we struggle to get sleep, we could be experiencing a mismatch between how we evolved and how we live now. “Basically we’re isolated, and this might be influencing our sleep,” he says.
A better understanding of how human sleep evolved could help people rest better, Samson says, or help them feel better about the rest they already get.
“A lot of people in the global North and the West like to problematize their sleep,” he says. But maybe insomnia, for example, is really hypervigilance — an evolutionary superpower. “Likely that was really adaptive when our ancestors were sleeping in the savannah.”
Yetish says that studying sleep in small-scale societies has “completely” changed his own perspective.
“There’s a lot of conscious effort and attention put on sleep in the West that is not the same in these environments,” he says. “People are not trying to sleep a certain amount. They just sleep.”
https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/society/2022/why-people-sleep-less-than-primate-relatives
*
“DEATH IS NOT AN INSTANTANEOUS PROCESS”
I’ve seen people die. Not dramatically, just... quietly. A breath that doesn’t come back. A heart monitor that just goes flat while a daughter stands out in the hallway, still talking, unaware.
Death is not an instantaneous process. The brain is a stubborn beast. The heart may stop, but the brain keeps on going. The neurons just keep on firing away for a while, burning up the last of the oxygen. Like a city stays lit during a blackout. There’s real electrical activity going on at the time of death. A “wave,” some scientists call it. I call it the brain just refusing to believe the memo.
What the resuscitated report—warmth, tunnel, faces—this is real. This is not nothing. This is also not necessarily the ghostly realm. This is an oxygen-deprived cortex doing what cortices do. Weaving a story out of nothing. Making patterns out of chaos. Whether it’s connected to anything outside the realm of biology, I have no idea. No one in a pair of scrubs has any idea, no matter what they may tell you.
What I’ve seen is the body’s just... refusing to give up. The breaths are deep, labored, biological. But the face... the face is somehow relaxed. The tension of a lifetime just... eases.
What I’ve seen, what I’ve learned over the course of fourteen years of this, is that the people who looked the least frightened, without exception, had left the most unsaid things unspoken.
That’s the only thing you can really prepare for. ~ Herbert Kennel, Ambulance Driver, Quora
*
WHEN SCIENTISTS CLONED A MOUSE FOR 58 GENERATIONS
Cloning from the clone of a clone of a clone may not be the ingenious idea we thought it was.
For two decades, a team of researchers cloned mice from successive generations of clones until the new clones were no longer viable.
Analysis of clone genomes showed that mutations had accumulated with each new generation until, finally, the animals could no longer survive.
While cloning has been looked at as a way of saving endangered species and even achieving de-extinction, the results of this decades-long experiment raise serious questions.
Creating exact doppelgängers of creatures in a lab was largely the stuff of science fiction until 1996, when Dolly the Sheep became the first mammal ever to be cloned. But while speculations arose about the potential pitfalls of generating hordes of clones, as a team of Japanese researchers found out, those issues sometimes take on a different form than expected.
Two decades ago, Teruhiko Wakayama (a biologist from the University of Yamanashi) and his team of researchers cloned a single female mouse. Then, they cloned the clone, and the clone’s clone.
With initially promising results, they continued to clone from each successive generation of clones for a total of 58 generations (not including the original mouse). But problems began to rear their heads after generation 25—when re-clones from one of the later generations mated with male mice, egg fertilization succeeded, but embryos degenerated.
It turned out that, despite having no abnormalities in appearance or lifespan, more and more mutations had begun to accumulate in the DNA of each successive generation. Eventually, the combined effects of the mutations became lethal.
Creatures that clone themselves repeatedly do exist in nature, so it’s not impossible to do. Hydra and coral polyps are just two examples of animals that can self-replicate, but as it turns out, mammals (which rely on sexual reproduction) are a different story.
For many years, it was thought that cloning could potentially be used to produce superior domesticated animals en masse, or bring endangered species back from the brink. But after seeing what happened with the 1,200 mice they cloned, the researchers behind the 20-year experiment aren’t so sure.
“[Mammal cloning] issues are believed to stem from failures in “reprogramming” the donor nucleus to reset the epigenetic state of differentiated somatic cells to that of a fertilized embryo; this occurs not directly due to DNA abnormalities, but the detailed mechanisms responsible remain unclear,” they said in a study recently published in the journal Nature Communications.
Given that genetic abnormalities don’t appear in successive generations of cloned plants, non-mammalian vertebrates cloned through parthenogenesis, or less complex cloning animals (such as hydras), researchers wanted to see if mammals could also be cloned indefinitely. The first rounds of results looked hopeful—after serial cloning trials began in 2005, DNA sequencing and analysis of duplicated mice revealed no differences between early and later generations of clones. But that began to change after generation 27, when genetic abnormalities began to negatively affect fertility. By the 58th generation, the cloned mice died the day after birth.
There may have been several causes behind the abnormalities that arose in later generations. One suspect was Trichostatin A (TSA), which enhances nuclear reprogramming—a process that resets cells to have the differentiation abilities of pluripotent stem cells without changing any of their nuclear DNA. While the researchers suspected that TSA lost its effectiveness as generations progressed, analysis showed otherwise.
Epigenetic abnormalities—changes to gene expression that switch genes on and off without affecting the structure of the DNA sequence—were another possibility, but no such abnormalities were found. Embryos of mice that were cloned in vitro also showed nothing abnormal in their development.
It was only when the researchers sequenced the genomes of re-cloned mice from different generations that they found mutations. Disastrously, by the final generation, so many background mutations had accumulated that the clones were no longer viable. While many re-cloned mice with multiple mutations were able to live out healthy lives (and some even bred with mice that were not clones), successive cloning ultimately backfired.
These results raise serious doubts about whether cloning can provide a way to save endangered mammal species.
“Since the birth of Dolly the sheep, cloning technology has been envisioned for diverse applications,” the researchers said. “Yet, these findings demonstrate that practical application of cloning of mammals requires a deeper appreciation of these biological constraints, warranting further research, and reaffirm the evolutionary inevitability that sexual reproduction is indispensable for the long-term survival of mammalian species.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a70861443/scientists-cloned-a-mouse-for-58-generations-the-results-were-catastrophic/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
*
FIBER IS GOOD FOR THE BRAIN
Eating fiber can improve health, lengthen lifespans, and even protect our brains. Yet many of us are still coming up short on this "essential nutrient".
A diet high in whole grains, fruits, pulses, nuts and seeds – all of which are full of fiber – can have huge benefits for both our bodies and our brains.
Emerging research shows fiber supercharges the microbiome and influences the gut-brain axis, which is the communication channel that runs between the gut and the brain; slowing down symptoms of cognitive decline.
Increasing fiber intake is one of the most impactful dietary changes for cognitive health, says Karen Scott, professor of gut microbiology at the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen. Alternatively, a fiber deficit has been found to be a leading dietary risk factor for ill health.
Yet many of us aren't eating enough. In the US, about 97% of men and 90% of women do not eat enough fiber. Most eat less than half the recommended daily amount. In the UK, over 90% of UK adults fall short, with many other countries showing similar deficiencies.
So why exactly is fiber so beneficial, and how can we eat more of it?
Gut feeling: How fiber functions
Fiber is a carbohydrate that can't be easily broken down by the digestive enzymes. Most therefore passes through the gut largely unchanged.
It increases the size of stools. It keeps us feeling fuller for longer and, as we digest it slowly, it leads to a more gradual rise in blood sugar levels. Those who eat more whole grains per day have been shown to have a lower BMI and less belly fat than those who eat refined grains.
A diet high in fiber can also help lengthen a lifespan and should therefore be considered an essential nutrient, says John Cummings, emeritus professor of experimental gastroenterology at the University of Dundee.
A review which Cummings co-authored found that those who ate the most fiber showed a 15-30% reduced risk of mortality compared to those who ate the least. Sufficient fiber consumption, which the researchers say is about 30g per day, lowers the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and colon cancer – and translates as 13 fewer deaths per 1,000 people.
The greatest benefits were seen at 25-29g of fiber per day. To achieve that, you could incorporate fiber into every meal and snack, with portions of fruits or vegetables in each meal. A skin-on jacket of potato with baked beans followed by an apple will provide about 15.7g of fibre for instance. Snacking on nuts and seeds will also increase your intake – a handful of nuts (about 30g) contains 3.8g of fiber.
Key to this impact is fiber's relationship to the gut microbiome.
As our gut bacteria digest fiber, beneficial byproducts are produced, including the short-chain fatty acids acetate, propionate and butyrate. It's these metabolic products that provide critical energy for cells and are linked to significant reductions in mortality, explains Cummings.
Minding your meals: How fiber protects the brain
A high-fiber diet is also now believed to be particularly important for brain health, explains Scott. The presence of the fatty-acid butyrate helps maintain the lining of the gut, she says, thus reducing the risk of harmful substances entering the bloodstream and affecting the brain.
That's why the gut microbiota can improve cognition. "The more fiber you eat, the more butyrate is produced, then the better your cognition can be retained."
A 2022 study involving over 3,700 adults found that there was a lower risk of dementia among individuals who had the highest fiber intake. Those who ate the least showed an increased risk. Similarly, study among adults over 60 for instance, found that those who had diets higher in dietary fiber showed increased cognitive function.
While the above findings were correlations, a more recent randomized control trial of twin pairs also identified a causal impact on fiber and cognition. Those who consumed a daily prebiotic fiber supplement showed improved results in cognitive tests in three months compared to those who had a placebo. Prebiotics are simple fibers that benefit bacteria in the gut and can be consumed as supplements. Analysis of stool samples revealed that the fiber supplement changed the participants' gut microbiome, with increased levels of beneficial bacteria, such as Bifidobacterium.
Mary Ni Lochlainn, clinical lecturer in geriatric medicine from Kings College London, led the study, and says it holds promise of using diet to help enhance brain health and memory in the older population. "The exciting thing about the microbiome is that it's malleable and certain microbes seem to be associated positively with health.”
One analysis found a 15-30% reduced risk of mortality between those who ate the most and least fiber.
Ni Lochlainn is therefore interested in learning how we can better harness the gut microbiome to improve age-related decline, both cognitive and physical. "It's an untapped resource and an underexplored area that we're learning a lot more about," she says, adding that it could "make growing older easier".
Research also shows that higher levels of butyrate production have a positive effect on depression, improved sleep and better cognitive function. Butyrate producing bacteria, for instance, have been linked to greater wellbeing, as well as a reduction in mental ill health.
Additionally, Scott's team has recently found that patients with Alzheimer's disease had higher numbers of pro-inflammatory markers in their fecal samples, and lower numbers of the bacteria that produce butyrate, as well as less butyrate overall.
"It ties together with that link between butyrate and the brain," she says. This was a correlational study, she says, but also notes that it supports the growing body of evidence of changes to our gut microbiota are linked to brain health.
HOW TO EAT MORE FIBER
Research has shown that individuals with long healthy lives have diverse gut microbiomes. A diet with varied forms of fibre helps encourage this diversity, says Cummings.
As there are so many different sources – including nuts, fruits and vegetables – it's relatively easy to increase your intake.
Increasing plant-based foods is an obvious step, especially pulses, as peas, beans and lentils are high in fiber. Some easy additions could include blending canned chickpeas into pancake batter or adding peas into pasta dishes.
Swapping white bread and pasta for brown varieties are other simple tweaks. If you prefer the taste of white pasta, mixing the two makes the difference barely noticeable. Making sure your breakfast cereal is wholegrain helps.
Snacking on popcorn, apples, seeds and nuts will then further improve your fiber intake, as different foods have different health effects.
Plus fiber can be found in supplements, which is especially useful for those who struggle to chew or swallow, as can be the case for individuals with Parkinson's disease.
The benefits of fiber are so large that "increasing your fiber intake is really the single most beneficial thing" people can do for their overall health, says Scott.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260122-the-protective-effect-that-fibre-has-on-cognition
~ A high-fiber diet might save your life. In a 2015 meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Epidemiology,
people who consumed the most fiber were 19 percent less likely to die
during study periods ranging up to a decade, compared with people who
consumed the least amount of fiber. Researchers analyzed 17 studies
comprised of more than 980,000 participants and found that every 10
grams of fiber consumed cuts mortality risk by 10 percent. Fiber helps
regulate cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and control weight. A
diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains can help prevent
chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and
certain types of cancer, thus lowering your overall risk of premature
death. ~ https://www.pcrm.org/news/health-nutrition/high-fiber-diets-increase-lifespan
*
TWO CHEMICALS TIED TO PREMATURE BIRTHS AND INFANT DEATHS
Two chemicals used to make plastic more flexible are linked to nearly 2 million premature births and the deaths of 74,000 newborns worldwide in 2018, according to a new study.
A baby is considered premature when it is born before the 37th week of pregnancy. About 1 in 10 infants in the US was born premature in 2024, according to the 2025 March of Dimes Report Card.
“Babies who survive may have breathing problems, feeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, vision problems, and hearing problems,” according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The two chemicals in the study — Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or DEHP, and its cousin diisononyl phthalate, or DiNP — are part of a family of synthetic chemicals called phthalates.
Phthalates are known to interfere with the body’s mechanism for hormone production, known as the endocrine system, and are “linked with developmental, reproductive, brain, immune, and other problems,” according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Even small hormonal disruptions can cause “significant developmental and biological effects,” the institute says.
“This is a dangerous class of chemicals,” said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, senior author of the new study and the Jim G. Hendrick, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics at NYU Langone’s Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
“In the context of all the efforts that we’re taking to have more babies born in the United States, we should also make sure that babies are born healthy,” said Trasande, who is also a professor of population health and director of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics and the Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards at NYU Langone Health.
“These data further support efforts to negotiate a plastic treaty that limits chemicals of concern commonly used in plastics,” he said.
The American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel told CNN in an email that the US Environmental Protection Agency conducted a comprehensive risk evaluation of uses of DiNP under the Toxic Substances Control Act and concluded that it does not pose “unreasonable risk of injury to human health for consumers, the general population, or the environment.”
The council, which represents the US chemical, plastics and chlorine industries, provided no comment on di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or DEHP.
‘Everywhere’ chemicals
Phthalates are often called “everywhere” chemicals because they are used in so many consumer products. The chemicals provide flexibility in children’s toys, art supplies, food storage containers, vinyl flooring, shower curtains, garden hoses, medical devices and more.
Phthalates also help lubricate substances and carry fragrances in personal care products, including deodorants; nail polishes; perfumes; hair gels, sprays or shampoos; soaps; and body lotions.
“These are additives that are also used in the cling-type plastic wrapping plastic that is commonly used in food packaging,” Trasande said.
Research has linked phthalates with reproductive problems such as genital malformations and undescended testes in baby boys and lower sperm counts and testosterone levels in adult males. Studies have also linked phthalates to childhood obesity, asthma, cardiovascular issues and cancer.
A 2021 study coauthored by Trasande found that phthalates may contribute to 91,000 to 107,000 premature deaths a year among people ages 55 to 64 in the United States. People with the highest levels of phthalates had a higher risk of death from any cause, but especially from heart disease.
How might these chemicals contribute to preterm births and infant deaths? Although much more research needs to be done, scientists have some ideas.
“One pathway is the disruption of placental function which has been documented to be affected by phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals,” said Jane Muncke, managing director and chief scientific officer at the Food Packaging Forum, a nonprofit foundation based in Zurich, Switzerland, that focuses on science communication and research on plastics and other chemicals used in industry.
“Ironically, babies born preterm will be exposed to even more plastics, as neonatal wards rely on plastic tubing,” said Muncke, who was not involved with the latest study. “This is also a big, pressing reminder that innovation into safer materials, especially for use in health care, is urgent and should be a high priority for policymakers and entrepreneurs.”
How to avoid phthalates
The good news is that phthalates have a short half-life and leave the body within a few days, experts said. Therefore, careful planning to avoid plastics can have a significant impact.
“For mothers and expecting families looking to minimize exposure, there are some reasonable and practical steps that can help,” Liang said. “These include choosing personal care products labeled ‘phthalate-free.’ Check ingredient lists for terms like diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBzP).”
However, product labels do not always list chemicals in a consistent way. For example, in personal care products, phthalates are often included under broader terms like “fragrance” or “parfum,” Liang said.
“Phthalates are important additives to make fragrances stay fragrant,” Trasande said. “Another key tip: As heat encourages chemicals like phthalates to leach from the plastic, avoid microwaving or machine dishwashing plastic.”
Use proper ventilation to improve indoor air quality and do regular vacuuming, since phthalates can accumulate in household dust, Liang added.
“That said, it is important to emphasize that these exposures are widespread and often difficult to fully avoid,” he said. “Meaningful protection cannot rely solely on individual behavior. The most effective solutions are upstream, including stronger regulations, safer product formulations, better labeling, and improved environmental management and regulatory oversight.”
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/health/phthalates-infant-death-prematurity-wellness
*
2026 ‘DIRTY DOZEN’ PRODUCE: NEARLY 100% TESTED POSITIVE FOR PESTICIDES, INCLUDING ‘FOREVER CHEMICALS’
Leafy greens such as spinach and perennial kid favorites such as strawberries and grapes held the highest levels of potentially harmful pesticide residues based on government tests, according to the 2026 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce.
Nectarines, peaches, cherries, apples, blackberries, pears, potatoes and blueberries filled out this year's "Dirty Dozen" most pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables, according to the report released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a health advocacy organization.
Spinach, which holds the top spot, had more pesticide residue by weight than any other type of produce and contained, on average, four or more different types of pesticides, according to EWG, which has published the annual report since 2004.
Samples of every produce type averaged four or more pesticides, except for potatoes, which averaged two. Consuming produce with multiple pesticides is concerning, experts say, because exposure to mixtures of pesticides may accumulate and raise risk.
To do the report, EWG examined the most recent pesticide residue tests conducted by the US Department of Agriculture on 54,344 samples of 47 fruits and vegetables.
Before the USDA examines each sample, the fruit or vegetable is peeled or scrubbed and thoroughly washed to mimic consumer behavior at home. Even after taking those steps, testing found traces of 264 pesticides — of those, 203 appeared on Dirty Dozen produce.
Several PFAS chemicals have been linked to cancer, obesity, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, decreased fertility, liver damage, hormone disruption and damage to the immune system, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Some of these chemicals can cause harm at levels of a billionth of a gram.
"Unfortunately, there's no way to contain the harm," Del Chiaro said. "We can't just harm the mold spores or insects on a peach and not potentially harm the little kid that eats the peach. The fact that we're intentionally spraying forever chemicals on the produce we're buying at the grocery store is a real eye-opener.”
Clean Fifteen
As part of the annual report, EWG also creates an annual "Clean Fifteen" — a list of nonorganic produce with the least amount of pesticide residue.
This year, nearly 60% of the Clean Fifteen samples had no detectable pesticide residues. Pineapple, sweet corn and avocados topped the list as the least contaminated of all produce tested. Next came papaya, onions, frozen sweet peas, asparagus, cabbage, cauliflower, watermelon, mangoes, bananas, carrots, mushrooms and kiwi.
The solution is not to stop eating fresh produce, experts stress. Fruits and vegetables are the backbone of a healthy diet, so the key is to eat as many different types of fruits and veggies as possible.
Choosing more of the Clean Fifteen and less of the Dirty Dozen — or buying organic versions of the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables is an excellent way to reduce pesticide exposure, said EWG science analyst Varun Subramaniam.
Studies have shown that eating more organic than conventionally grown foods can reduce levels of pesticides in humans, he added.
"There are oftentimes organic options in the freezer section, too," Subramaniam said. "But if you can't find organic versions of blackberries, for example, we know any washing is better than none."
Firm produce such as carrots, cucumbers, melons and potatoes can be scrubbed with a clean vegetable brush under running water, the FDA said. All other produce can be gently rubbed while being rinsed. There is no need to use bleach, soap or a produce wash — fruits and vegetables are porous and can absorb those chemicals.
Remove the outermost leaves of cabbage, lettuce and other leafy greens and rinse each leaf carefully — but don't blast your greens with water, or you'll bruise them.
Experts said it's best to use low-pressure water that is warmer than your produce and a colander to spin the greens dry. Don't forget to wash the colander afterward. Exceptions are "triple-washed" bagged greens, which the FDA said do not need an additional wash.
EWG's 2026 Dirty Dozen List
Spinach
Kale, Collard, and Mustard Greens
Strawberries
Grapes
Nectarines
Peaches
Cherries
Apples
Blackberries
Pears
Potatoes
Blueberries
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/24/health/2026-dirty-dozen-pesticide-produce-wellness?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc&recs_exp=up-next-article-end&tenant_id=related.en
*
ending on beauty:
NARCISSUS
standing in front of the mirror,
adjusting his crown of thorns
~ Oriana
Georgia O'Keeffe: Narcissa's Last Orchid
