SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " word " 2,603 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
A Daring Scene on Broadway This Season Has Audiences Talking, in More Ways Than One
NEW YORK (AP) — On any given evening as the lights come up on Act 2 of “Liberation,” Bess Wohl's intergenerational Broadway play about a women’s consciousness-raising group, you can hear supportive cheers of “Whoo!” and “Yeah!” — and sometimes, a round of applause. All before a single word has been ...
Nine mental-health tips for a happier 2026
Regardless of any resolutions you may have for 2026, one thing is for sure: Everyone wants to have a happy new year.While losing weight or saving money may be great goals, the most straightforward path to happiness is caring for your mental and emotional health. A robust body of research shows that simple cognitive and behavioral strategies can reliably boost happiness and reduce stress – and they’re generally free and accessible to all.These strategies don’t have to be super time-consuming, but they do require intention: They only work if you do them.Here, psychologist Valentina Ogaryan, PhD, clinical director of the Simms/Mann UCLA Center for Integrative Oncology, shares her top tips for cultivating more calm, centeredness and happiness in the new year (or anytime):Make time for playPlay isn’t just for kids, and it’s far from frivolous. The National Institute for Play says engaging in silliness, fun and just-for-pleasure activities reduces stress and increases optimism and resilience. A recent review also found that play improves mental health.“Adults can benefit from play as much as children,” Dr. Ogaryan says, “not just as a reward, but something that helps regulate.”So go ahead and dance with your dog, build something with Legos, tell a joke, sing karaoke or do anything else that feels like fun. Don’t worry about being productive, just enjoy yourself. And, if you can, opt for more analog play, Dr. Ogaryan suggests, as a respite from our ever-more-digital world. Move your bodyWhether you dance, ski, do yoga, play pickleball, ride a bike, roller-skate, hike or lift weights, physical movement benefits overall happiness and well-being. A 2018 review study of more than 1.2 million adults in the U.S. found that doing any kind of exercise was “significantly and meaningfully associated” with better self-reported mental health.The sweet spot was 45 minutes of movement three to five times a week, but even short bursts of physical activity can boost brain health, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.“Movement helps support mood and regulate the nervous system,” Dr. Ogaryan says.Plus: exercise can improve sleep quality, and sleep is essential for mental health.Prioritize sleep“Sleep plays a major role in managing stress,” Dr. Ogaryan says. Research shows that lack of sufficient sleep increases the risk of various diseases, including depression.While stress can interfere with sleep, practicing good sleep hygiene can make logging ZZ’s easier. That means maintaining a consistent bedtime; keeping the bedroom cool, dark and quiet; and avoiding social media, news and stimulating shows before bed.Consume lessWe live in a consumer culture, inundated by endless streams of content and advertising everywhere we go, which makes it easy to get overstimulated.“Something really helpful for stress reduction is to simply consume less,” Dr. Ogaryan says – less news, less social media, less information, less noise, less screen time. “It’s about reducing the input,” she says.Consider setting a maximum number of news articles per day, for example, or a time limit on scrolling. Maybe even go device free for an afternoon or a whole day.Practice present-moment awarenessWith so much coming at us all the time, focusing on the here and now can make life feel more manageable, Dr. Ogaryan says: “When everything feels super overwhelming, when everything feels larger than life, let’s make our world a little bit smaller for that moment in time.”She suggests taking things one day, or even one hour, at a time. Ask yourself: What’s my next right action? Release the need to know how everything turns out and liberate yourself from having to handle everything right now. Let the future take care of itself and just focus on the current moment. Then the next one. Have a daily anchorFrom work to the daily commute to family and life responsibilities, our days can feel jam-packed. Dr. Ogaryan recommends creating a centering daily anchor that can fit into even the busiest day.Maybe it’s a 10-minute walk during your lunch break or mindfully enjoying your coffee in the morning. Let your anchor adapt to your needs each day, she says, but be intentional about using that time to ground yourself and calm your nervous system. You might even say to yourself, “I choose this walk to help me become centered,” or “My day already feels stressful, so I’m going to take the next 10 minutes to enjoy this cup of coffee, feel the warm mug in my hand and just be present.” Having an anchor won’t erase the busy-ness from your day, but it will allow you to approach it more calmly.Be kind to yourselfMost of us have a harsh inner critic in our heads who works overtime. But that critical voice only increases our stress, triggering the same fight-or-flight response as caustic words from another person.To feel happier, we need to replace that inner critic with a kinder, more compassionate voice, Dr. Ogaryan says. Studies show that self-compassion is a source of eudaimonic happiness – the kind of happiness associated with purpose and meaning in life.While our knee-jerk reaction may be to self-criticize – “How could you let it get to this point? You didn’t manage your time well and now the project is going to be late. You’re so inept.” – we fare better mentally by treating ourselves with kindness, like we would a friend. That might sound like, “You’ve got a lot on your plate, but you are capable and you’ll get it done. I believe in you.”We may think that speaking kindly to ourselves means letting ourselves off the hook, so we end up becoming lazy do-nothings. But research shows the opposite: People who are self-compassionate are more likely to try harder in the face of failure and ultimately reach their goals.You can thank your inner critic for its good intentions, but resolve to talk to yourself in a kind, compassionate voice.Connect with othersHumans are social animals built for connection. Stress can be isolating and cause us to withdraw, but connecting with others is a salve for the psyche, Dr. Ogaryan says.“We know that not all relationships are always easy, but if we can think about intentional, nourishing connection – even in really small doses – it could really help center us,” she says.Take a moment to laugh with your colleagues, hug your pet, have a conversation with a friend or smile at the barista making your coffee. A study found that even tiny interactions with casual acquaintances and strangers decreases loneliness and improves happiness and well-being.Seek supportIf you try these practices and happiness remains elusive, or if you can’t access the wherewithal to follow these tips, seek support from your physician or a therapist. Mental health conditions are among the most common health issues in the U.S. and around the world – more prevalent than diabetes or heart disease. One in five people in the U.S. experiences a mental illness each year, with depression and anxiety the most common, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.“We can all think about these tips,” Dr. Ogaryan says. “But it’s important to recognize if you’ve done everything you can and you’re still really struggling, it’s really important to seek help.”
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.
NYT Strands Hints for Dec. 24, 2025
Scroll down for hints and conversation about the puzzle for Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2025.
2 culinary legends explain how to improve your baking — and your mental health
During a recent event at WBUR's CitySpace, renowned chefs Joanne Chang and Dorie Greenspan convinced me that even I could whip up beautiful holiday treats. And more surprising still, they said it might be good for me to do so.
Vogue Business’s Top 10 Words of the Year
The terms that influenced and defined culture in 2025 across fashion, beauty, sustainability and tech.
I started using Gemini to create notes in Google Keep, and it's been a game-changer
Stop typing, start prompting
The big business stories in Hollywood with entertainment reporter John Horn
With box office revenues continuing to slump, a major studio up for sale, and the announcement that the Academy Awards will go to YouTube in 2029, this has been a tumultuous year in Hollywood.
Week 16 Instant Reactions: December Derrick Henry shows up for fantasy football, but Drake Maye has final word
YouTube Music's long-awaited Now Playing redesign is nearly here
A broader rollout may not be far away
5 ways Android Auto became the clear winner in the dashboard war against CarPlay
Android Auto might just be the better option for lots of drivers
One word sums up climate politics in 2025: Greenlash
In a year shaped by Trump's return to the White House, the new administration touted "energy dominance" and protesters threw eggs at "swasticars."
Clair Obscur Is Having Its Indie Game Game Of The Year Award Stripped Away Due To AI Use
The Indie Game Awards presented the award last night, only to strip it hours later.
One Final Fantasy card proves Magic’s Universes Beyond can tell meaningful stories
Universes Beneath: Sometimes, life isn’t Fair
8 Google Docs add-ons you didn't know existed but will change how you work
Google Docs is way more powerful than you think
A letter from STAT's Rick Berke on a tumultuous year in health and science
A letter to readers from STAT Executive Editor Rick Berke on a tumultuous year in health and science.
The science behind one of the holiday season's simplest gifts
Scented candles have sort of a bad rap as a low-effort holiday gift. But a lot goes into the process of creating them. “Making candles is actually pretty scientific,” said Ashley Rossi, the owner of Noted Candles in Hingham
Fargo business owner under fire for use of “r-word” on social media
The posts were reshared by the owner of Southtown Pourhouse, Duane's Pizza, and The Windbreak.
DraftKings backed Healey’s political nonprofit on housing. Other funders are a mystery
DraftKings, the Boston sports-betting giant, donated $50,000 to a political advocacy group launched by Gov. Maura Healey to promote housing policies. It's a rare look at who's donating to this fund, at a time when sports gambling is getting greater scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.
AI companies are sick of their favorite buzzword — so they’re inventing new ones
It’s the great AGI rebrand.
How organized crime is impacting politics in Latin America
Chile elected far-right President José Antonio Kast after he promised to reduce crime.
Palmer Luckey told you so
When the memelord founded Anduril, defense was a dirty word in tech. Now 'ew' is 'oorah.'
Google Pixel 10 gets a long-overdue GPU driver upgrade
Arriving with Android 16 QPR3 Beta 1
House Republicans vote to let Obamacare subsidies lapse
A House GOP-authored health care bill passed the chamber Wednesday night but won’t be the final word on the future of the enhanced tax credits.
AI Prognosis: Were experts right about their 2025 health AI ‘bingo cards’?
AI Prognosis newsletter readers weigh in on 2025 predictions about ambient scribes, antibody design, AI agents, and more.
Susie Wiles offered unflattering assessments of her colleagues to Vanity Fair. In return, they showered her with praise
Of all the blunt assessments White House chief of staff Susie Wiles shared with Vanity Fair over the past year, perhaps her sharpest words were aimed at Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Francis Collins and Marc Siegel say medicine is a gift from God
“To have Christians be the group that was most resistant” to the Covid vaccine “really seems wrong here,” said former NIH Director Francis Collins.
Reflections on the State of Disc Sports (2025)
The Ultiworld Editor-in-Chief shares his thoughts on the state of the industry.
Baldur's Gate 3 team using genAI on its next game, but the controversial tool is 'something we are constantly discussing' says CEO
'We are neither releasing a game with any AI components, nor are we looking at trimming down teams to replace them with AI'
Entertainment Industry Humans Launch 'Creators Coalition on AI'
A group of artists and entertainment pros have formed the Creators Coalition on AI, an agnostic convening organization to address concerns.
Google wants its AI assistant CC to replace your morning scroll
Move over, ChatGPT Pulse.
Google tests an email-based productivity assistant
Google's new email based assistant will be available to 18+ AI Pro and Ultra plan users in North America
Science Crossword: Pointing South
Play this crossword inspired by the January 2026 issue of Scientific American.
Words of war | Latest US politics news from The Economist
The latest news in US politics, with coverage of Donald Trump’s second term.
Expedition 33's Game Awards sweep fuels online drama and conspiracy theories
No amount of snarky posts or memes can undo the sincerity that helped Clair Obscur sweep in the first place.
Google is rolling out 'urgent' expressive calling for its Phone app
Works even with DND on
Clair Obscur's new Endless Tower bosses are providing quite the challenge for returning players
Whether it's rust or because the bosses are just artificially hard, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 players are reeling at the free DLC's difficulty.
KHS science teacher Alison Klein earns prestigious national board certification
KEARNEY - Kearney Public Schools is proud to announce that Alison Klein, science teacher at Kearney High Schoo...
Vaccines and access to health insurance: Taking stock of 2025's biggest health news
We review the biggest local headlines in health care for 2025 with WBUR senior health reporter Priyanka Dayal McCluskey and Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers' Michael Curry.
Monday ‘Dawg Bites Is Kickin’ It During Awards Season
Good morning, Bulldog Nation! Here’s hoping you enjoyed a fantastic weekend in which your coach didn’t appear for an arraignment and your Athletic Director isn’t trying to explain why this sort of thing keeps happening on his watch. Sadly University of Georgia athletics has t been completely immune from crime and punishment news as word […]
The Shade Room (@theshaderoom)
In a recent conversation, T.I. expressed his views on the church, suggesting that it can be a business and that leaders often manipulate the word for personal gain. He emphasizes the importance of personal connection with God, stating that you don't need a middle man to hear your prayers. Explore the complexities of faith and leadership in this thought-provoking discussion.
This vaccine adviser to RFK Jr. has some choice words for his critics
MIT business professor Retsef Levi teaches about how health care decisions are made, but isn’t a doctor.
Samsung's Galaxy S26 series may offer a couple of software surprises
And we now know about one of them
I write about ultraprocessed foods, yet I still can’t tell you how to avoid them. Here’s why
“Ultraprocessed” has become a bad word in our food supply, but regulators are struggling with how to define the term to help consumers. Here’s why that’s so hard to do.
This new Pixel 10 feature tells you more than any benchmark ever will
The Quick Share update is important
Thousands Of Players Flock Back To Divinity: Original Sin 2, And Some Of You Are Even Trying The Originals
Even Dragon Commander saw a boost.
Why Trump and these MAGA allies are trying to resurrect the 'r-word'
Trump's foes and friends have noticed a revival of the term, which advocates say is harmful to Americans with mental disabilities.
Dispatch Has A Endgame State So Rare That Not A Single Player Has Seen It Yet
There's a fourth "your Robert" outcome that's gone completely unnoticed.
Tomb Raider Co-Creator Doesn't Seem Too Impressed With Legacy Of Atlantis
"Personally I'd prefer exploring new lost worlds than another remake/remaster/reimagining."
This app brought desktop-style versatility to my Android phone
Convenience in a tiny package
War of the words: Why Luigi Mangione's evidence hearing is more than a fight over a backpack
A fight over words like "execution," "manifesto" and "Faraday" is the undercard bout at Luigi Mangione's ongoing evidence-suppression hearing in NYC.
Bernardo Silva: Manchester City midfielder in his own words
Manchester City midfielder Bernardo Silva sits down with Kelly Somers to discuss his career, what he will do once he retires, and playing for Pep Guardiola.
Inaccurate Fallout AI Recaps Pulled By Prime Video After Major Backlash
Backlash over inaccurate Fallout recaps causes backlash among viewers.
Divinity Isn't Just Going To Fill Baldur's Gate 3’s Shoes, It's Going To Outgrow Them
Larian Studios has announced the game that will follow in the footsteps of Baldur's Gate 3.
Veteran Dem. operative offers scathing 6-word rebuke of Trump
The operative said that Trump was "done" in several states where Democrats defeated Republicans in elections this year.
Week in politics: Indiana rejects redistricting, health care in limbo and Trump mocks affordability
Polling indicates most Americans are unhappy with how President Trump is handling the economy.
Week in politics: Indiana rejects redistricting, health care in limbo and Trump mocks affordability
Polling indicates most Americans are unhappy with how President Trump is handling the economy.
Google quietly makes a major Play Store change Android users will hate
Google Play Store now gives you less freedom
The Game Awards’ grand finale reveal was a game you’ve never heard of coming out in a month
Highguard comes from the creators of Apex Legends and Titanfall
The New WHO Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance: Incorporating Common but Differentiated Responsibilities into PABS - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, an international treaty designed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The product of three years of arduous negotiations, the treaty marks a new era of global cooperation in public health. However, core aspects of the agreement remain unresolved—notably the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System, which is intended to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related materials and benefits. To support the successful implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Introduction For the first time, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” the compelling idea that the health of animals, humans, and the environment all contribute to pandemic risks. SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19 all emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts—respectively, civets, hogs, and bats. Together, they underscore the need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. The Pandemic Agreement responds to this call, requiring state parties to acknowledge the ecological interplay and commit to a comprehensive “One Health” strategy. Specifically, Article 5 charges governments to address “the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease at the human-animal-environment interface,” including wild animal markets, deforestation, and antibiotic overuse. Yet the effectiveness of this “One Health” vision depends equally on the free flow of scientific information and data among countries and institutions. Just as environmental and animal health factors have been neglected in past global frameworks, so too has data sharing been marginalized, despite its centrality to timely detection and response. The Pandemic Agreement takes an important step by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these provisions will remain aspirational without a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex. The PABS system will determine whether countries and researchers can rapidly exchange pathogen samples and genetic data while ensuring equitable access to resulting research and development, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Without such mechanisms, the treaty’s promise to operationalize “One Health” and strengthen global preparedness will risk becoming largely symbolic, echoing earlier failures to translate shared principles into coordinated action. Equity Concerns When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left the difficult question of access to pathogens and the sharing of resulting benefits to be addressed in a separate agreement. Negotiations on this separate agreement, PABS, are now underway in Geneva. Yet governments remain divided over fundamental questions of equity between the countries that primarily contribute to the system and those that primarily draw from it—and consequently benefit. For example, wildlife in countries bordering the equator is likely to produce PABS materials, but companies in Europe are likely to use them to develop lucrative products. The most likely contributor countries are likely to be those biodiverse countries around the equator, such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, where the number of human-mammalian viral host interactions is large. Conversely, countries most likely to benefit from this material are those with the technology, investors, and infrastructure to capitalize on genomic data, such as the United States, EU member states, and Japan. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern seen in prior international frameworks. Now, as in the past, the wealthiest countries in the world (a useful heuristic is membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) disproportionately benefit from systems in which pathogens and genomic sequencing data are contributed to a common source. Under the International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the “Plant Treaty” or “Seed Treaty”) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, companies from Europe and North America disproportionately withdraw biological samples and data for development into lucrative medical products. Their governments and companies have both statutory and contractual claims to the products that those companies correspondingly produce. PABS appears poised to follow the same pattern. The text calls for strong language on access to pathogens and associated data, but the corresponding benefits that should flow to poorer countries are couched in equivocal or non-binding language. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities To address these inequities, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Common but differentiated responsibilities are often a feature of climate change negotiations. The basic principle is that, even though all countries should reduce carbon emissions, governments that became rich and powerful through massive carbon emissions (e.g., France, the United Kingdom, the United States) should have a greater obligation to address the resulting crises. Applied to PABS, it would require that governments hosting and supporting companies developing lucrative products carry greater obligations toward the cost of running the PABS system; share benefits or final medical products; and transfer technology to help countries worldwide develop their own capacities to innovate and manufacture vaccines during an emergency. For example, an annex could mandate that any company based in an OECD country that withdraws PABS material would be obligated to donate the resulting diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines to the WHO during a public health emergency or pandemic. Questions remain about how robust those donations would be, but the principle is that they should deliver highly significant lifesaving benefits to be equitably shared. Theoretically, this approach mirrors the PIP Framework, in which companies withdrawing influenza samples are required to pay half of the operating costs. In practice, however, the framework has fallen short. The PIP Framework Secretariat has struggled to secure payments from companies, with companies often disagreeing over how much is owed. Additionally, without another pandemic influenza to test the strength of the agreement during a public health emergency, corporate compliance with sharing mechanisms remains unknown. Even if these limitations did not characterize the PIP Framework, partially paying for operating expenses does not address the inequity in access to genetic data and pathogen samples that left less developed countries last in line for COVID-19 vaccines (and, before them, H1N1). Common but differentiated responsibilities would go further, addressing governments’ legitimate grievances regarding information sharing. It would make withdrawals of PABS material and resulting products more transparent, building trust across the board. Enforcement and Enduring Success A key implication of this approach is that the governing mechanism of the PABS must have real enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement delegates its core governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP)—a governing body composed of one representative from each participating government, similar to those established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement COP is charged with oversight functions but ultimately possesses no real authority to compel a government to take any action it does not wish to take. The text does not give the COP the ability to, for example, sanction a party that does not comply with either textual obligations or PABS provisions. In other words, there are no effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Perhaps just as significant, establishing a meaningful enforcement mechanism within the PABS system would strengthen the WHO’s credibility and its ability to ensure compliance across global health governance. By setting a precedent for accountability, such a mechanism could enhance the organization’s authority not only within the Pandemic Agreement but also in enforcing the revised International Health Regulations and other frameworks for public health emergencies. Conclusion The PABS annex can—and should—be different. It should establish clear responsibilities for funding as well as for sharing the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that result from contributions to the system. The system, in turn, must include a dedicated body empowered to hold governments and the corporations they sponsor accountable for their responsibilities before, during, and after pandemics. Doing so would restore trust in the broader agreement, which was eroded as commitments were repeatedly diluted while parties scrambled to meet their own self-imposed deadlines during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. A robust PABS Annex would cement a grand social bargain. Wealthier countries and their corporations would gain unimpeded access to scientific information essential for developing and manufacturing lifesaving medical products. As such, they would stand to gain considerable economic benefit. Yet that privilege must be matched with responsibility. The grand bargain must include not only the right to innovate, but also the duty to ensure that innovation serves all. As medical products are developed and produced through collective contributions, every person must have equal access. All human beings deserve an equitable chance to survive—to save their own life, the lives of their families, and the well-being of their communities. … Sam Halabi, JD, MPhil, is the Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Health and the Director of the Center for Transformational Health Law at Georgetown Law. He serves as the co-lead for the WHO’s Working Group on Regulatory Consideration on AI and Health’s training workstream. He earned his JD from Harvard, his MPhil from Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University. Lawrence Gostin, LLD (Hon.), JD, BA, is University Distinguished Professor and Founding Director and Timothy and Linda O’Neill Professor of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is the author of Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard University Press, 2021); Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014); Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2016); Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2018); Law and the Health System (Foundation Press, 2014); Principles of Mental Health Law & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010). He also directs the WHO Collaborating Center at Georgetown University. Image Credit: United States Mission Geneva, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
‘Lay down your swords’: Shapiro, Cox call for civility amid rising political violence
Govs. Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.) and Spencer Cox (R-Utah) urged the country to “act with moral clarity” and “lay down your swords” as the two men warned of increasing political violence across the countr…
LastPass Brings Secure Access to Businesses and Individuals Alike With New Capabilities in 2025
BOSTON, December 10, 2025--LastPass, a leader in password and identity management trusted by over 100,000 businesses worldwide, announced a series of major advancements in 2025 designed to give users greater security, visibility, and control across work and life. Key updates include Passkeys, now available to all customers, and Business Max, a new SKU that introduces easy-to-use SaaS visibility and access control capabilities alongside other improvements that strengthen security and simplify use
Mass. reports 'double' the usual number of people dropping Connector health plans amid expiring subsidies
A lot happens in Boston every day. To help you keep up, WBUR, Boston's NPR News station, pulled these stories together just for you.
Trump, 79, Melts Down Over Failing Health in 500-Word Rant
Shortly after wrapping a 90-minute speech at a rally in Pennsylvania, the president posted a lengthy rant to Truth Social.
Google Pixel 9 Pro display woes lead to extended repair program
Pixel 9 Pro Fold gets a warranty extension
PlayStation Plus Getting Gorgeous Day-One Game For Free, TODAY
Don't miss out on this day-one release!
In My Words: What college freshman taught me about politics
The longest government shutdown in US history painfully illustrated that most elected officials are not good at interacting productively with the opposite political party. Far from this embarrassing...
CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins reacts to Donald Trump calling her 'stupid and nasty'
CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins had a few words for President Trump after his lengthy social media rant in which he called her 'stupid and nasty.'
The Android password manager nobody talks about actually beats the giants
This invisible Android password manager crushes the competition
These 5 free apps make any smart TV way more useful (and none are streaming)
Unlock the full potential of your smart TV with these five game-changing free apps.
This Android 16 tablet feature is making me consider replacing my iPad
The update that's making iPad owners nervous
Somali American and Durham resident says 'President Trump’s words were hurtful'
Somali American and Durham resident reacts to President Trump's remarks on the Somali community and country.
Dragon Age Day Came And Went Without A Word From BioWare
This comes after a ton of internal strife before, during, and after Dragon Age: The Veilguard
American Science, Shattered
An eight-decade partnership between universities and the federal government made U.S. science preeminent. It took Trump less than a year to shred that
3 takeaways from WBUR's investigation on sports betting addiction among young adults in Mass.
A lot happens in Boston every day. To help you keep up, WBUR, Boston's NPR News station, pulled these stories together just for you.
'I just gambled our entire savings away': Young adults in Mass. are hooked on online sports betting
Addiction specialists, treatment programs and 12-step recovery groups tell WBUR they’re seeing a rise in young adults — ranging from their late 20s to early 30s — seeking help for serious gambling problems tied to sports betting apps.
A new Android malware sneakily wipes your bank account
Another banking malware has struck Androids yet again
The Tragedy of Christian Power Politics
“There is a time for war,” says the preacher in Ecclesiastes, “and a time for peace.” Let the present time point toward the time of perfect and ultimate peace, when the swords of nations shall be beaten into plowshares.
New Android update aims to stop scammers from screen recording your bank apps
Protection we all need
How to change your Google Pixel 10's lock screen widgets
It's not as simple as it should be
You can no longer Call Home on the Google Home app
the feature looks to have been removed with recent updates
27 Science Words That Only People With Above-Average Intelligence Know The Definitions Of
Welcome back to science class. Take a seat.
Ask the Developer Vol. 20: Drag x Drive — Part 1 - News
This article has been translated from the original Japanese content. In this 20th volume of Ask the Developer, an interview series in which developers convey in their own words Nintendo's thoughts about creating products and the unusual details they…
Dr. Oz on Trump administration's health policy
Attempts are being made in Congress to work out how to advance a vote on health care subsidies and whether to extend them.
Your brain doesn’t age the way you think — new research upends old beliefs
Cambridge neuroscientists discover five distinct stages of brain development from birth to 90, revealing key turning points in human aging based on brain structure.
Indigenous knowledge and science join forces to save the choro mussel in Chile
Huellelhue means “place for swimming” in Mapudungun. It’s also the name of one of the rivers that flow through the Lafken Mapu Lahual Multiple-Use Conservation Area, established in 2005 in southern Chile’s Los Lagos region. The name of this area is more than just a grouping of words, says Eduardo Vargas, president of the Nirehue […]
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.
Netflix turns off casting on newer TVs and Chromecasts
It wants you to use the app instead
The Game Awards' Geoff Keighley teases announcement by placing a whopping demon-covered statue in the desert
The Game Awards organiser Geoff Keighley has set social media tongues wagging with three words: regal.inspiring.thickness.
Election year ‘offers chance to put value of science forward’
New Zealand Association of Scientists says country suffers from lack of clarity around research funding
From science to fiction, stories of the uncertain and unknown
Why do we, the non-scientists, care about Dark Matter or quantum uncertainties, relativity and black holes? After all, to most laymen, the science behind the words may as well be magic
Trump says Hegseth told him he didn't order second strike
President Donald Trump said Nov. 30 he believes Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's words he didn't order a second strike to kill survivors of a suspected drug boat.