SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " poor " 551 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The iPhone Air sold poorly, and now we know exactly what people hated about it
Not enough cameras? A single speaker? Poor thermals? Most of you think that the iPhone Air flopped because it fails to meet a number of expectations.
Menopause linked to loss of gray matter in the brain, poorer mental health and sleep disturbance
Menopause is linked to reductions in gray matter volume in key brain regions as well as increased levels of anxiety and depression and difficulties with sleep, according to new research from the University ...
Trump Officially Cuts Ties With WHO, Ending Decades-Long Partnership
By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Jan. 26, 2026 (HealthDay News) — The United States has officially pulled out of the World Health Organization (WHO), a year after President Donald Trump announced plans to leave the global health group. The Trump administration said the decision was based on what it called WHO’s poor ...
Why U.S. middle-aged adults report more loneliness and poorer health than peers abroad
Americans born in the 1960s and early 1970s report higher loneliness and depressive symptoms and show poorer memory and physical strength than earlier generations. Such declines are largely absent in ...
Another killing by a federal officer deepens Trump’s self-inflicted political nightmare
President Donald Trump and his administration this week seemed to belatedly come to the realization that their Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minneapolis are going poorly.
The Class Politics of Austerity
A new book by economist Clara Mattei explains why calls for governments to balance budgets and live within their means are often a thinly veiled justification for an assault on the poor.
Childhood ADHD Linked To Health Problems In Middle Age
By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Jan. 23, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Childhood ADHD can set a person up to have poor health in middle age, a new study says. People with ADHD traits at age 10 are likely to have chronic illness and disability at age 46, researchers reported Jan. 21 in JAMA ...
‘I’m picking winners’: UK business secretary takes activist approach to economic growth
AI evangelist Peter Kyle wants to scale up businesses, attract overseas investors and look out for UK’s poorer regions
C.J. Stroud Faces a Defining Offseason in Houston
After overcoming a 0-3 start to make the playoffs, the Houston Texans’ season came to a close on Sunday. The 28-16 loss to the New England Patriots snapped the Texans’ 10-game winning streak. As a result, the Texans remain winless in the Divisional Round. Another poor offensive showing doomed the team, and the lion’s share […] The post C.J. Stroud Faces a Defining Offseason in Houston appeared first on The Lead.
North Dakota must spend rural health funds wisely in face of long-term cuts
Rural health care delivery has been a challenge for North Dakota ever since the founding of the state. Because rural folks tend to be older, poorer, and sicker than those living in urban areas, the issues of health care access and availability are especially pressing. Over the years, there have been several initiatives and programs […]
Pumas battles back to get tie against Leon
Pumas bounced back from a poor 1st half to get a 1-1 tie against Leon.
What is ‘metabolic health,’ and why does it matter?
The definition is tricky, but the effects of poor metabolic health are clear — and can wreak havoc on the body.
These 5 health conditions cause the most deaths
Three out of four deaths worldwide are caused by non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and 80% of those deaths are caused by just five conditions. Heart disease is the biggest killer, followed by cancer, respiratory diseases and diabetes. Not only do these conditions cause tens of millions of deaths a year, they also carry a staggering economic cost. The good news is they are largely avoidable. Five major risk factors significantly ramp up your chances of contracting an NCD, from air pollution to a poor diet, and 80% of NCDs could be prevented with the right interventions. A new paper from the World Economic Forum and the Partnership for Health System Sustainability and Resilience (PHSSR) sets out recommendations for policy-makers to help boost their NCD prevention efforts.
What Is ‘Metabolic Health,’ and Why Does It Matter?
The definition is tricky, but the effects of poor metabolic health are clear — and can wreak havoc on the body.
Lawmakers question Coast Guard official about tanker seizures, boat strikes
The “shadow fleet” of nearly 1,000 vessels poses environmental and safety risks because the boats are often poorly maintained, according to the International Maritime Organization
Childhood Oral Health: An Overlooked Predictor of Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Adults
Poor oral health during childhood is associated with an increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease during adulthood, especially when disease is severe or worsened over time.
SMuRF-less but Inflamed : Is Inflammation the Key to Women’s Heart Health?
A new study shows inflammation might be the key to poor heart outcomes in women.
13 stats to explain Cavs 114-110 loss vs. Pistons
Cleveland’s poor second quarter did them in again.
Apple reportedly cuts production of Vision Pro headset after poor sales
Company had hoped the virtual reality device would herald a new era in ‘spatial computing’
ADHD drugs don’t work the way we thought
ADHD stimulants appear to work less by sharpening focus and more by waking up the brain. Brain scans revealed that these medications activate reward and alertness systems, helping children stay interested in tasks they would normally avoid. The drugs even reversed brain patterns linked to sleep deprivation. Researchers say this could complicate ADHD diagnoses if poor sleep is the real underlying problem.
The 10 Senate races that will decide the balance of power in 2026
Democrats still face an uphill battle to net four seats and take control of the Senate, but they see a path amid Trump’s poor ratings on the economy and concerns about health care.
Sleep Apnea Risk Tied to 40% Higher Odds of Poor Mental Health
Obstructive sleep apnea significantly worsens mental health in older adults, increasing risks of depression and psychological distress over time.
5 major African cities with the lowest health care index at the end of 2025
One of the most immediate consequences of a low healthcare index in several African cities during the year was poor population health
Will you be watching Lions vs. Vikings on Christmas?
Will Detroit Lions fans be watching the team on Christmas or opt out because of poor play and the holiday?
Why Apple's Foldable iPhone May Be Smaller Than Expected
Apple's first foldable iPhone, rumored for release next year, may turn out to be smaller than most people imagine, if a recent report is anything to go by. According to The Information, the outer display on the book-style device will measure just 5.3 inches – that's smaller than the 5.4-inch screen on the iPhone mini, a line Apple discontinued in 2022 due to poor sales. The report has led some people to wonder why Apple would settle on such a compact form factor.
Paying More, Getting Less: Rising health care costs, poor outcomes, and harmful federal policy decisions are putting New Yorkers at risk
Paying More, Getting Less: Rising health care costs, poor outcomes, and harmful federal policy decisions are putting New Yorkers at risk Key Takeaways Health care costs are rising sharply across all forms of coverage, while federal policy decisions are worsening affordability and access. Enhanced ACA premium tax credits are set...
The US healthcare system hurts poor Americans. It’s about to get worse
As Congress cuts healthcare access to pay for tax cuts and poor Americans die earlier, billionaires invest in anti-ageing
What Can U.S. Employers Do About Rising Healthcare Costs?
U.S. employers are grappling with surging healthcare costs as healthcare prices and service volumes rise. Provider consolidation, high drug prices, labor shortages, and growing chronic disease are fueling the cost increases. Employer have largely responded by shifting expenses to workers. Their track record in pursuing aggressive options—including collective purchasing, tiered plans, value-based care, and advocating for changes in government policies—is poor. The big question is whether they have the will to become more aggressive in pursuing remedies. The outlook is not promising. The reasons include the complexity of the problem, employee resistance to some solutions, and the fact that most employers just don’t have sufficient “skin in the game” to take on the disruption and risk that would be required to bend the healthcare cost curve significantly or sustainably.
Key Data on Health and Health Care by Race and Ethnicity
This analysis examines how people of color fare compared to White people across 64 measures of health, health care, and social determinants of health using the most recent data available from federal surveys and administrative sets as well as the 2023 KFF Survey on Racism, Discrimination, and Health.
WHO highlights health risks and opportunities in the global waste crisis
A new World Health Organization (WHO) report, Throwing away our health: the impacts of solid waste on human health – evidence, knowledge gaps and health sector responses, warns that poorly managed solid waste is driving a public health crisis and calls for urgent action to protect people and the environments they live in.Globally, the volume of municipal solid waste is growing at an unprecedented rate. Yet, many countries still lack the systems and resources to manage this waste safely. “Solid waste reflects how our societies produce and consume, and how we treat people and the environment in the process,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director a.i., Department of Environment, Climate Change, One Health & Migration at the World Health Organization. “If we continue to treat waste as an afterthought, we will lock in avoidable disease, climate pollution and deep social inequities. This report is a clear call to put health and equity at the centre of how we design, manage and ultimately reduce waste.”The report summarizes evidence on how solid waste – especially municipal solid waste – affects health through polluted air, water, soil and food. When waste is not collected, or is dumped, burned or not poorly treated, it can release hazardous chemicals, contaminate drinking-water sources and create breeding grounds for insects and rodents.Communities underserved by waste management services, those living near dumpsites and poorly managed landfills and incinerators, children and pregnant women, as well as waste workers – particularly those working informally – face the greatest risks. For the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) community, the report underlines that safe management of municipal and health care waste is integral to safely managed, climate-resilient systems.A large share of municipal solid waste is still not collected or is disposed of in uncontrolled conditions, including open dumpsites and open burning. These practices damage ecosystems, contribute to climate change and undermine efforts to build healthy cities. When waste is properly managed, however, it can become a resource – generating energy and creating green jobs. The report calls for a coordinated, multisectoral response grounded in the waste hierarchy: preventing waste where possible, then reducing, reusing and recycling, with safe recovery and disposal.Key actions for governments and partners include reducing waste generation at source; expanding affordable and reliable waste collection services, especially in underserved communities; improving control at recovery and disposal facilities; and eliminating open dumping and burning, including hazardous waste. The new report identifies a central role for the health sector in addressing solid waste as a public health threat. The health sector can prevent and minimize health-care waste at source, improve segregation and safe treatment, invest in cleaner climate-resilient technologies, and advocate for health-protective policies and standards. The report also encourages more surveillance, research and biomonitoring to strengthen the evidence base, and promotes social protection and inclusion of informal waste workers.“This report gives countries and health authorities a very practical agenda,” said Mr Bruce Gordon, Head, Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Health Unit, WHO. “Health ministries can start now by ensuring safe management of health-care waste, developing strong occupational health programmes for waste workers, and working with municipalities to reduce health risks from solid waste by closing open dumps and burn sites and gradually improving towards safe services. These concrete steps save lives today and will make cities cleaner and healthier in the future.
Thomas Frank reaction — What did Spurs boss say after heavy defeat to Nottingham Forest?
Thomas Frank's reprieve from harsh, intense criticism following Tottenham Hotspur's recent poor performances was rather brief, as Spurs were wayward once again in a 3-0 defeat away to Nottingham Forest on Sunday.
Caleb Wilson dominates in UNC’s win over USC Upstate
Despite some poor defense, the Heels put away the Spartans to improve to 9-1.
Boston hospital cafeteria addresses health code violations after inspection
A December health inspection found multiple violations, including temperature control problems and poor sanitation practices.
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
Cracker Barrel diners are sounding the alarm – here’s what reportedly has them furious
Cracker Barrel customers slam restaurant chain for poor food quality as company works to regain customer confidence in the wake of its failed rebrand.
Ignored, misdiagnosed, left to die: Illinois' new prison health care provider has a history of poor care, records show
A Sun-Times review of more than 100 lawsuits against Centurion Health shows a recurring pattern: People in prison repeatedly complain about a health issue, are ignored by correctional and medical staff and their condition worsens to the point of dangerous complications or death.
"Is Square Enix really giving birth to something genuinely new?" Major shareholder urges a fundamental reassessment of Final Fantasy maker's future
A major shareholder in Square Enix has released a 100-page document criticising the company for its poor sales and urging for a "fundamental reassessment".
Rogers Victor: Food, not pharma: A new path for Michigan’s health
"Food is Medicine" is an important movement, but only a culture-wide shift will turn around our poor diet-driven health trajectory.
Paranovus Entertainment Technology Ltd. (NASDAQ:PAVS) Looks Inexpensive After Falling 94% But Perhaps Not Attractive Enough
The Paranovus Entertainment Technology Ltd. ( NASDAQ:PAVS ) share price has fared very poorly over the last month...
Opinion: Our responsibility to science communication
When we think of global threats, we don’t think of poor science communication. We think of climate change, of pandemics or perhaps of terrorism. I would be shocked if science communication cracked your top 10. And yet, we all lived through the COVID-19 pandemic. Think of how 20 years ago, vaccines were largely apolitical, but...
Anwar to Cut Small Business Costs After Poor Poll, Bernama Says
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced measures to help reduce cost burdens for small and medium enterprises in the Southeast Asian country, according to a Bernama report, days after his coalition performed poorly in state legislative elections in Sabah.
Analysis: Trump’s retribution campaign is going poorly — and could backfire
President Donald Trump’s retribution campaign has long suffered from a very significant and important deficit — and that’s the actual evidence.
Trump wants more health savings accounts. A catch: they can’t pay insurance premiums
Wealthier Americans are using them to pay for gym equipment, cedar ice baths, and hemlock saunas, but poorer Americans can’t use them for insurance.
Health Savings Accounts, Backed by GOP, Cover Fancy Saunas but Not Insurance Premiums
Health savings accounts can be used to cover medical expenses, tax-free. But while wealthier Americans are using them to pay for gym equipment, cedar ice baths, and hemlock saunas, poorer Americans can’t use them to pay their skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
'Nine points from top but a million miles away'
Ross: If we have stooped so low that we need a dodgy last minute penalty to beat a team like Dundee United then the squad have a problem that can't be fixed with the current players. If Jack Butland and Nico Raskin weren't there this year, we could've been relegated by now. Also, James Tavernier had a poor day, we should maybe consider a long term replacement for him in January.
Smartphones before age 12 tied to poorer health, study says
Parents join 'Fox & Friends' to discuss the impact of smartphones on younger generations and a new study linking early age smartphone use to poorer physical and mental health.
Logitech Named to Inc. Best in Business 2025 List
Logitech Sight's Smart Switching feature, powered by RightSight 2, recognized in Best AI Implementation Category for enhancing hybrid meeting equity Intelligent multicamera framing listed in Best AI Implementation category Honored for AI tech that fixes poor hybrid meeting experiences Company selected based on ingenuity, industry impact, superior execution Today, Logitech (SIX: LOGN) (NASDAQ: LOGI) was named to Inc. Best in Business 2025 list. The annual awards celebrate the exceptional achievements and contributions of companies that have made a profound impact in their industries. Based on the AI-powered Smart Switching feature of Logitech Sight tabletop conference camera, the company has been recognized in the Best AI Implementation category. The AI-powered Smart Switching feature of Logitech Sight automatically selects the best angle between multiple cameras. The experience to the remote viewer is like that of a TV production. Logitech developed Smart Switching in response to a
Bills show resilience in overcoming mistakes, injuries by dominating Steelers
Put aside the turnovers, middling passing production, poor tackling and all the other issues that have hounded the Buffalo Bills for much of this season
The Red Sox are already crying poor
As free agency begins, the Red Sox want you to believe they don’t make money.
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.
Health literacy a challenge for some Kentucky populations
Low health literacy can lead to poorer health outcomes, and groups across Kentucky are working to help communities make more informed decisions about their health.