Meta, TikTok knew social media apps could harm teens, filing shows

Joel Rosenblatt

Mar 14 2023

TikTok’s parent company ByteDance and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg were allegedly made aware of concerns about their platforms.

Employees at Meta Platforms and ByteDance were aware of the harmful effects of their platforms on young children and teenagers but disregarded the information or in some cases sought to undermine it, court filings show.

The revelations were disclosed in a lawsuit over social media addiction that had been filed previously but with key portions sealed from public view.

An unredacted version filed over the weekend in federal court in Oakland, California, offers details about how much engineers and others, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, knew about the harms of social media and their misgivings about it.

“No-one wakes up thinking they want to maximise the number of times they open Instagram that day,” one Meta employee wrote in 2021, according to the filing. “But that's exactly what our product teams are trying to do.”

The case in Oakland comprises a collection of scores of complaints filed across the US on behalf of adolescents and young adults who allege that Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Google's YouTube caused them to suffer anxiety, depression, eating disorders and sleeplessness.

More than a dozen suicides also have been blamed on the companies, based on claims that they knowingly designed algorithms that drew children down dangerous and addictive paths. Several public school districts have filed suits, too, alleging they can't fulfill their educational mission while students are coping with mental-health crises.

In their defence, the social media giants point to a 1996 law that gives internet platforms broad immunity from claims over harmful content posted by users. Both sides are watching closely a Supreme Court case that will likely determine the fate of the litigation in Oakland.


Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube have been accused of causing anxiety, depression, eating disorders and sleeplessness among young people (file photo).

According to the new filing, internal documents at TikTok parent ByteDance show that the company knows young people are more susceptible to being lured into trying dangerous stunts they view on the platform – known as viral challenges – because their ability to weigh risk isn't fully formed.

Young people are more likely to “overestimate their ability to cope with risk”, and their “ability to understand the finality of death is also not fully fledged”, according to the filing.

Another unsealed portion of the filing contends that instead of moving to address the problems around children using Instagram and Facebook, Meta defunded its mental health team.

The filing says Zuckerberg was personally warned: “We are not on track to succeed for our core wellbeing topics (problematic use, bullying and harassment, connections, and SSI), and are at increased regulatory risk and external criticism. These affect everyone, especially youth and creators; if not addressed, these will follow us into the Metaverse.”

Snap had no immediate comment on the court filing. Representatives of Meta and TikTok didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The companies have previously said that user safety is a priority and that they have taken affirmative steps to give parents more control over their kids' use of the platforms and to provide more mental health resources.

Hate crimes increased nearly 12% in US in 2021: FBI

According to findings, 12,411 individuals were victims of hate crimes

Servet Günerigök |14.03.2023 -

Charlottesville, Federal Plaza Square in Chicago, United States 

( Bilgin S. Sasmaz - Anadolu Agency )

WASHINGTON

Hate crimes in the US rose nearly 12% nationwide in 2021, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

"Nationally, reported hate crime incidents increased 11.6% from 8,120 in 2020 to 9,065 in 2021," the agency said in a release.

According to the findings, 12,411 people were victims of hate crimes in 2021.

The statement said that 64.5% of the victims were targeted because of their race, ethnicity or ancestry, while 15.9% were targeted because of their sexual orientation and 14.1% for their religion.

"Of the 8,327 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in the updated 2021 dataset, 43.2% were intimidation, 35.5% were simple assault, and 20.1% were aggravated assault," said the release.

"Hate crimes and the devastation they cause communities have no place in this country," Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said in a statement

Elephants honoured in Thailand as part of nation's heritage

MARCH 13, 2023

A Buddhist monk receives food from an elephant during Thailand's National Elephant Day celebration at Nong Nooch Tropical Garden in Pattaya, Thailand, on March 13, 2023.

Reuters

CHONBURI, Thailand - Thailand celebrated National Elephant Day on Monday (March 13), honouring the beast that is a beloved symbol of the country with feasts of fruits and vegetables.

Thailand in 1998 declared March 13 as a day dedicated to the conservation of its elephants.

Traditionally, they have been used as work animals and even in warfare but in modern times their very existence is under threat.

The president of the Nong Nooch Tropical Garden in Chonburi province, where a ceremony was held to mark the day, said elephants were a source of national pride and part of the country's cultural and historical identity.

"We are now trying to maintain those domesticated elephants and give them food and shelter," Kampon Tansacha said. "If I release all of them to the wild, they won't survive."

Sorry, it’s not about Lineker’s job or BBC but about the boat child

Braverman explained her immigration policy was meant for the well-being of the people fleeing their lands of birth. It is a bit like the assassin asking the victim where he should be shot.

Published: 14th March 2023 


AFP
By C P Surendran

Last week, Gary Lineker, once a wealthy professional UK footballer and now a wealthier BBC host of the Match of the Day, tweeted in response to UK home secretary Suella Braverman’s bill against illegal immigration: “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?” Lineker was fired by the BBC, anticipating displeasure from the Tory government. Unlike a desperate country like India, many of Lineker’s BBC colleagues have walked out in support. Partly as a result, he’s reported to be back.

The BBC likes to describe itself as fearless, impartial and holding power to account. The power here is Braverman, a Buddhist incidentally, whose compassion is often indistinguishable from cruelty. Last week, she said of illegal immigrants: “They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally you will be detained and swiftly removed.” In defence of her immigration policy, she explained that it was finally meant for the well-being of the people fleeing their lands of birth. It is a bit like the assassin asking the victim where he should be shot.

Many progressive UK celebrities, rich, white, and awash in good sentiments, have supported Lineker. So, is Liberal Britain really for friendlier immigration laws, or are they just bothered about the language used? The language, naturally. Because, if one removed the comparison that Lineker made with Nazi Germany and which offended the government, would the boat people be welcomed with roses by Liberal Britain

No. A recent Financial Times report quotes the YouGov/Global Progress survey, which says 58% of respondents found it “very important” to have “clear, consistently applied rules about who can come to our country”. And 44% said “limiting numbers” was “very important”. It is another way of saying that the relatively Liberal 58% agrees with the stringent 48%, provided the pills are sugar-coated. The truth is no one wants a poor and scruffy black, brown, or yellow stranger dripping the salt of the sea they crossed stumbling along the clean streets of a rich European country.

Rich because they once colonised the black, brown, or yellow lands. As I said, Liberal Britain is fundamentally in agreement with Conservative Britain. Their problem is not the plight of the immigrant. It is the BBC. Or free speech. Whose star exponent for the day is Lineker—worth about 29 million pounds. We are talking about a rich man’s rights in a rich country, not about a poor man at sea.

Suella Braverman’s main point is that illegal immigrants are straining the system to the tune of billions of pounds. Immigrant hopefuls to Britain come mostly from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan—places with a British geopolitical or strategic interest. More problematic are illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, is special in that Britain recently entered into an agreement with that country’s government to pay them to take back the deported asylum seekers. According to reports, some 28,000 potential immigrants crossed the channel to England last year, among them many Rwandans. In the early 90s, when lakhs died in the civil war in Rwanda, two beers could get you one grenade, a western diplomat said. The whites, some of whom no doubt own grenade companies, made a fortune. (You can’t keep a white man from money. It is in his blood. As is free speech. One feeds the other, perhaps.)

The immigration policy debate in Britain and the pale, painless version of the idea of free speech have now become inseparable from Lineker’s BBC job—which he can easily do without. How does a very rich man’s—even if he is a good soul—right to tweet overshadow the terror and trauma of, say, a boat child’s experience?

The same culture of vanilla goodness flavours, for instance, another western Liberal obsession: global warming. The West has moved into the post-rich phase where development ethics can be clinically discussed. All the coal has already been carried to Newcastle, and they are now free to move on to the virtues of non-carbon emitting technologies. Poor countries like India will take decades to get anywhere near western standards of living. But the earth-hugging, polar bear-loving West would like the rest of the imperfect world to cut carbon emissions, go for cleaner and more expensive development models, and put up with the poverty and social unrest resulting from the fraught transition.

It’s not just the hollowness of the BBC as free speech champions (home or abroad, everyone finally works for the Boss, whoever he, she, or it is), or the puffery of the perfumed Liberals that the immigration debate in Britain exposes. It also brings to the fore the historical obligation that former colonial powers Britain, France, or Belgium have toward their former colonies—and their unwillingness to meet it.

This is not just a subject for the Oxford Union debates or panel discussions in literature festivals, where everyone talks about reparations (which, if at all, will go to the respective government in power, not necessarily to the people) to loud applause. It demands nothing less than an opening of the borders across the developed and developing world: if capital is almost border-free, there is no reason why labour cannot be.

The present UK debate on the boat people is increasingly an extension of the old discourse of superficies. It is not Lineker’s access to free speech that is in question: his life is not in threat, he faces no uncertain future. It is not the exposure of the BBC’s hapless self. It is about the rights of the once-colonised poor to create muddy pools of seawater on the white shores of Albion. Albions everywhere.

(cpsurendran@gmail.com)
C P Surendran
Poet, novelist, and screenplay writer. His latest novel is One Love and the Many Lives of Osip B

Theresa May says small boats Bill will ‘shut the door’ to slavery victims

Former prime minister suggests plan to tackle people smuggling will not work and says it could tarnish UK’s reputation ‘on the world stage’

ByCharles Hymas,

HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR

13 March 2023 •

Mrs May told the Commons that ministers had failed to provide evidence to justify some of its claims 

CREDIT: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament

Theresa May has criticised the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill for “shutting the door” in the faces of genuine victims of persecution and modern slavery.

Speaking at the second reading of the Bill on Monday evening, the former prime minister also warned that the legislation would not work as the people smugglers and migrants would find another way to get into Britain.

“Whenever you close a route for migrants, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way. Anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with the issue of illegal migration once and for all is wrong,” she told MPs.

She was among a number of senior Tory backbenchers who voiced concern over the Bill, which places a legal duty on the Home Secretary to deport migrants who enter the UK illegally to their home country or a safe third country like Rwanda to claim asylum there.

Mrs May said the “blanket dismissal” of anyone fleeing persecution would mean genuine victims like a young woman escaping Iran would “have the door shut in her face” despite Britain’s tradition of welcoming them “regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route”.

“By definition, someone fleeing for their life will more often than not be unable to access a legal route. I don’t think it’s enough to say we will meet our requirements by sending people to claim asylum in Rwanda,” she said.

“And this matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage. And that matters because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation, not because we are British, but because of what we stand for.”

She warned that plans to refuse modern slavery claims by those who arrived illegally would be “shutting the door on victims while being trafficked into slavery in the UK”.

She said ministers had failed to provide evidence to justify its claims that small boat migrants were abusing the Modern Slavery Act, which she introduced during her time as home secretary.

And she questioned whether the plans would work given the risks of legal challenge and difficulties of detaining and deporting thousands of migrants.
‘Ineffective authoritarianism’

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory leader, also urged the Government not to disapply modern slavery laws but rather to speed up the processing of applications.

“Be very careful about the modern day slavery legislation and protect it,” he told MPs.

Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, urged the Government to rethink plans to create powers to detain and deport children, families and women.

“There’s nothing worse than ineffective authoritarianism, and that’s the danger of provisions like that,” he said.

He was backed by Sir Bob Neill, chair of the Commons justice committee, and Tory MP Simon Hoare who said he would vote for the Bill but with “a clear understanding that we wish to see amendments to it as it progresses through Parliament in particular in relation to women who are trafficked and to children”.

Chris Skidmore, the former education and business minister, had said he could not support the Bill, as he was “not prepared to break international law or the human rights conventions.” Caroline Nokes, the former immigration minister, declared her intention to oppose the Bill on Sunday.

Earlier, Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, had defended the plans, insisting it was “perfectly respectable” for her, as a child of immigrants, to say that immigration has been “overwhelmingly good” for the UK but to also say “we’ve had too much of it in recent years.”

Responding to Mrs May's comments, Rishi Sunak said he was confident the bill is the "best way to grip this problem".

"I've also always been clear that there is no overnight easy one simple solution to what is a complicated problem. It will take lots of different interventions," he said.

The House of Commons voted 312 to 250 to give the Bill a second reading.

No Conservative MPs voted against it, while a handful - including Theresa May, Chris Skidmore and Caroline Nokes - abstained.

Tory MP repeats claim 100 million asylum seekers could come to UK

The figure has been proven to be grossly misleading, with the Refugee Council saying the figure "simply doesn't reflect the reality."

 by Jack Peat

 

 2023-03-13 

 

in Politics

 

A Conservative MP has reiterated Suella Braverman’s claim that 100 million asylum seekers could come to the UK without an immigration crackdown.

Scott Benton, the MP for Blackpool South, took a stand in parliament during the second reading of the government’s Illegal Immigration Bill.

He said: “We simply can’t accept 100s of millions of people. This country is nearly full.”

Last week, the home secretary was accused of “inflammatory language” after she used the figure and claimed the “law-abiding patriotic majority” has said had enough of people arriving on small boats.

Braverman also said it would “betray” British voters not to tackle the “waves of illegal migrants breaching our border” as she unveiled plans for new laws to stop Channel crossings.

She added: “There are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let’s be clear. They are coming here.”

The Refugee Council said Braverman’s language was “unhelpful” – pointing out that it was wrong to suggest that there were 100 million asylum seekers around the world.

While the UNHRC has estimated that there at more than 100 million forcibly displaced people around the world, but only 26 million have left their own country.

“It’s an unhelpful suggestion that millions could come to the UK,” said Jon Featonby, chief policy analyst at the Refugee Council. “It simply doesn’t reflect that reality that the vast majority displaced from their homes stay within the country.”

The expert added: “It is vital as the debate continues it is informed by fact and reality rather than assumptions that don’t reflect lived experience.”

Related: Gary Lineker to return to hosting Match of the Day

Illegal Migration Bill passes first hurdle as MPs seek changes

The Bill's first reading in the House of Commons is met with criticism from Conservative MPs

Home Secretary Suella Braverman addresses the Commons about the migrant Bill on 

March 7. AFP / UK Parliament

Soraya Ebrahimi

Mar 13, 2023

The Illegal Migration Bill has cleared its first reading in the Commons, although some Conservative MPs have called for amendments to protect trafficked women, children and modern slavery victims.

The controversial asylum proposals aim to stop people claiming asylum in the UK if they arrive through unauthorised means, although it has been denounced by the UN’s refugee agency as an “asylum ban”.

The House of Commons voted 312 to 250 to give the Bill a second reading.

READ MORE

What is in Rishi Sunak's plan to stop the boats?

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the legislation was needed as people arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel have “overwhelmed our asylum system”.

Ms Braverman said there had been “too much” immigration in recent years.

She said she had been subjected to the “most grotesque slurs” for saying “simple truths” about the effects of migration on the country.

But Conservative former prime minister Theresa May warned that modern slavery victims will be “collateral damage” and have the door shut on them by measures within the Bill.

Mrs May said she was expecting to hold further talks with Downing Street to resolve the issues and noted how, when home secretary, she took action to respond to people jumping in the backs of lorries and cars to get into the UK.

“But what should be clear from this is whenever you close a route, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way, and anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with the issue of illegal migration once and for all is wrong," she said.

The Bill would enable powers to detain migrants for 28 days without recourse for bail or judicial review, and then indefinitely for as long as there is a “reasonable prospect” of removal.

Challenges based on modern slavery laws would be barred, and any other legal attempt to stay would be heard overseas — after the migrants are removed.

Labour former minister George Howarth said the situation for asylum seekers in Knowsley has “deteriorated” since a protest outside their hotel, with some being assaulted.

In a protest last month outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Knowsley, Merseyside, a police van was vandalised and fireworks thrown.

Mr Howarth said “we should all be ashamed” of the situation, as he hit out at the government’s Illegal Migration Bill in the Commons.

“I want to agree with the Home Secretary on one thing. And that is when she said we should choose our words carefully. It’s just a pity she didn’t do so herself," he said.

“There is a hotel in Knowsley with 180-plus asylum seekers. I won’t talk about that in detail because I had an urgent question on it a few weeks ago.

“But what I will say is since then the situation has deteriorated to the extent that some of the refugees have been verbally abused in the street, and others have been assaulted.

“And they have fled because the countries they come from were unsafe, only to find themselves in an unsafe position in this country. And I think we should all be ashamed.

“It’s not just happening in Knowsley, it’s happening all over the country.”

Conservative former justice secretary Robert Buckland warned that the tone of some in his own party is “not appropriate” and said there was a danger of “ineffective authoritarianism” from parts of the Bill.

Mr Buckland expressed “great concern” at the prospect of detaining children.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, writing on Twitter, said: “The Tories' Migration Bill is a con that will make chaos worse.”

But Conservative former minister John Hayes told the Commons: “Of course Britain should provide a safe haven for people in need, in genuine need.

"But it is a deceit to pretend the asylum system is not being gamed and the British people taken for a ride.”

There were heated exchanges involving both sides of the Commons, with some heckled for their language.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas criticised the “immoral, deeply cruel and divisive” proposal, and ripped up a copy of the Bill at the end of her speech.

Conservative MP Marco Longhi, a member of the home affairs committee, said people were travelling from “the other side of Africa or from other godforsaken country all the way to Calais”.

Labour tabled an amendment that sought to block the Bill but it was defeated by 249 votes to 312.

After the votes, Ms Braverman said in a statement: “Tonight’s vote proves what we already knew — the Labour Party cannot be trusted to stop the boats and the gangs that profit.

“Labour not only has no plan to stop the boats, they have no desire to either.”

UK government unveils 'robust' bill to

stop migrant Channel crossings - in

pictures











Ms Braverman said the UK's asylum system has been 'overwhelmed', with almost £7 million ($8.4 million) a day being spent on hotels to house people while their claims are processed. PA

President Joe Biden Says Younger Generation Helped Create Political Space for Change in ‘Daily Show’ Interview With Guest Host Kal Penn

The president discussed topics ranging from climate change to student loan forgiveness and protecting LGBTQ rights in his first 'Daily Show' interview since taking office.

BY CARLY THOMAS
MARCH 13, 2023 

Joe Biden and Kal Penn in 'The Daily Show' interview 

COMEDY CENTRAL’S 'THE DAILY SHOW'

President Joe Biden stressed the importance of the younger generation and the impact they have had on society in his interview for The Daily Show.

Kal Penn kicked off his hosting week talking to the president, his first Daily Show visit since taking office. During Monday’s episode, Biden discussed several topics ranging from climate change to student loan forgiveness and protecting LGBTQ rights, but throughout the interview, he kept crediting “young people” for helping to create change.

“That generation between 18 and 35 now. They’re the ones who created the space,” the president said. “They had enough of it. They had enough of it.”

He said when trying to put the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 together, he met with younger citizens and “we passed the largest environmental plan in all of history, over $368 billion dollars. We got it done.”

He continued, “People can’t deny it [climate change] anymore. They can’t deny the fact, and I’ve traveled the world. I’ve gone to all the COP meetings around the world, meaning the meetings on climate. If we don’t keep the temperature from going above 1.5 degrees Celsius raised, then we’re in real trouble. That whole generation is damned. I mean, that’s not hyperbole. Really, truly in trouble.”

Regarding the president’s efforts to reduce fossil fuels and review drilling and oil production, the response from “young people who want you to continue to be their champion but might not think that you’re going far enough or fast enough on climate,” Biden explained that it’s a slow process. “It’s a matter of transitioning, but it’s not like you can cut everything off immediately,” he said.

Penn went on to ask the president about the obvious divide in Congress and the difficulties it’s caused with trying to get things done. Biden expressed that he’s “been relatively successful in working across the aisle.” He also claimed that “more than a half a dozen Republican Senators I’ve known for years over the last two years come to me individually … saying, ‘Joe, I agree with you. But if I do anything publicly, they are going to primary me and I’ll lose.'” Biden didn’t mention any names, but stressed that the Republican Party is going through a significant transition and that the next two years will tell “how they end up, whether the MAGA Republicans control the party or we get back to conservative.”

The president also maintained his stance that those challenging his administration’s student loan forgiveness plan “have no standing.” He even compared the plan to the PPP program during the pandemic that went to helping impacted businesses, saying a “number of the very people who are criticizing me in Congress actually got benefits in the program. You don’t hear them talking about it, right?” A case related to student loan forgiveness is currently pending in the United States Supreme Court.

Amid the recent passing of two controversial anti-LGBTQ laws in Tennessee and discussions in other states, Biden and Penn also discussed marriage equality and what “the federal government might be able to do to protect LGBTQ Americans, especially trans kids, who are dealing with all of these regressive state laws that are popping up.”

Biden maintained that he’s had a “simple” outlook on the topic since he was younger, saying, “It doesn’t matter whether it’s same-sex or a heterosexual couple, they should be able to be married.”

As for anti-transgender legislation, the president told Penn, “What’s going on in Florida, is as my mother would say close to sinful. I mean, it’s just terrible what they’re doing. It’s not like, you know, a kid wakes up one morning and says, you know, I decided I want to become a man or I want to become a woman or I want to change.” Biden went on to express the importance of passing “legislation like we passed on same-sex marriage – you mess with that, you’re breaking the law and you’re going to be held accountable.”

Climate crisis in Middle East: Looming threat to millions

BY IRFAN ASHRAF MAR 14, 2023 


A dry land that was once fertile and green, in Second Village, Qouta town, Fayoum, Egypt, Aug. 8, 2020. (AP Photo)


The Middle East is facing severe consequences of climate change, with nearly 22 countries and 400 million people at risk; even wealthy countries in the Gulf region are at risk of life-threatening issues

The Middle East is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to the disastrous consequences of climate change. Approximately 22 countries and 400 million people are at risk of suffering the disastrous consequences of climate change in the Middle East region. With only 5 centimeters (1.97 inches) of rainfall per year and temperatures that can reach up to 52 degrees Celsius (125 degrees Fahrenheit), this region is mostly dry and hot.

However, in the northern regions, snow and lower temperatures are common. Due to the sensitivity of the weather in this region, it is considered to be the most vulnerable in the world, and climate change has already had a severe impact, causing heavy rainfall, droughts, forest fires and extreme hot and cold weather.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned in a 2014 report that temperature increases pose a threat to human security in the region.

The temperature is rising twice as fast as the rest of the world, and by 2050, sea levels will rise, leading to a temperature increase of 4 degrees Celsius in the region. The World Bank estimates that harsh summer weather will become a normal routine, and the region could face four months of severe hot summers. Recent research by the Planck Institute in Germany suggests that the Middle East will become uninhabitable by the end of the century.

Most affected countries

The rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the region has increased by a factor of three. As per reports, 10 out of the 22 countries in the Middle East are severely affected by climate change. Some of the countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chad, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Niger, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan.

In 2021, around 3 million people in Africa left their homes due to water and food shortages. Heavy floods in Pakistan affected 33 million people this year, and 78,000 people in Afghanistan. Thousands in Bangladesh were affected by floods and coastal erosion, causing devastating disasters in low-lying coastal areas. In Iraq and Syria, 12 million people are facing shortages of food, water and electricity due to low rainfall.

Even the wealthiest countries in the Gulf region are facing life-threatening problems. Two people died in Saudi Arabia due to heavy rain and floods, and Dubai is facing freshwater problems due to the population increase. Unpredictable rainfall last year caused road blockages in Dubai.
Threat of scarcity

The threat of food and water scarcity is directly related to climate change. If we don't find a solution to these disastrous changes, we will not have proper fresh food. The COVID-19 pandemic has already shown us that the world is not ready and prepared to face such crises. The Russia-Ukraine war led to a shortage of wheat in the Middle East, and now climate change has destroyed crops and animals. Thousands of animals are killed due to forest fires, and trees get burned, producing oxygen deficiency and toxic gases like carbon monoxide, which are harmful to health.

According to the World Resources Institute, the Middle East is a "water-stressed region," and the World Bank estimates that climate-related water scarcity will cost Middle Eastern nations between 6% to 14% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050 due to water-related impacts on agriculture, health and income. Around 70% of the world's water resources are used by agriculture.

Unfortunately, the people or regions that contributed very little to the climate crisis are the most affected by it. Diarrhea, malaria, malnutrition, skin cancer due to harsh ultraviolet lights, and an increase in seasonal diseases are prevalent. According to a survey, around 12% of people (930 million) spend 10% of their income on health.

Animals are also dying due to forest fires, lack of water, and harsh weather that causes melting of glaciers, heat waves and heavy storms. Many animals have gone extinct due to these weather conditions, and aquatic life is also under threat due to temperature and sea level rise.

In these challenging times, it is crucial for the world to come together and address the threat of climate change and help under-developing countries. We must work collaboratively to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and protect our planet for future generations.

As Bradley Schneider, an American businessperson and politician serving as the U.S. representative for Illinois's 10th Congressional District since 2017, once said, “Climate change is an economic, public, health and environmental issue that we have a moral responsibility to address.”

Hence, it is essential to support underdeveloped countries in combating the consequences of climate change and finding sustainable solutions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Analyst on international relations based in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Climate change: Global food system emissions could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100

Nature Climate Change

March 7, 2023

Emissions resulting from the global food system could add nearly 1 °C of warming to the Earth’s climate by 2100, a modelling study published in Nature Climate Change suggests. The findings also indicate that improvements to production and consumption practices could avoid 55% of this projected warming.

Global food production is a considerable source of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. Previous attempts to model these interactions have failed to account for continuous and evolving emission levels and require an arbitrary timespan to weigh the importance of different gases, commonly 100 years, which skews the climate impacts of either short- or long-lived greenhouse gases.

Catherine Ivanovich and colleagues use current global food production and consumption patterns to project future warming impacts throughout the twenty-first century under five population scenarios. They developed a detailed inventory of current greenhouse gas emissions for 94 different food items based on an extensive literature review. They found that the food systems alone could contribute nearly 1 °C to climate warming by the end of the century. Methane accounts for nearly 60% of warming associated with the food system, and carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide account for around 20% each. The authors also found that improving the production practices of foods associated with the highest relative contribution (ruminant and non-ruminant meat, dairy and rice) could avoid nearly a quarter of the predicted warming by 2100.

Ivanovich and colleagues argue that adoption of a medically recommended diet across the globe—which would entail reducing dietary protein content in some geographies and increasing it in others—combined with energy decarbonization and a coordinated effort to reduce food waste, could lead to another quarter of a degree of avoided warming by the end of the century.

doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01605-8

Original article 

Prostate cancer treatments can be avoided or delayed in many cases, huge study finds

A decades-long study finds that many prostate cancer patients can delay aggressive treatments and instead receive "active surveillance."

By Nicoletta Lanese published about 6 hours ago

Many patients with prostate cancer can opt for "active surveillance" instead of seeking aggressive treatment right away. 

(Image credit: STEVE GSCHMEISSNER/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY via Getty Images)

Many men with prostate cancer can delay or skip harsh treatments, such as surgery or radiation, without undermining their chances of survival, a decades-long study finds.

Instead, they can have their cancer "actively monitored" following diagnosis, rather than having their prostate removed or exposed to high-energy radiation. Such treatments can cause long-lasting side effects, such as urinary leakage, erectile dysfunction and other problems with urinary, bowel and sexual function.

"The good news is that if you're diagnosed with prostate cancer, don't panic, and take your time to make a decision" about how to proceed, lead study author Dr. Freddie Hamdy(opens in new tab), professor of surgery and urology at the University of Oxford, told CNN(opens in new tab). Crucially, this advice only extends to people with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer — those with high-risk cancer still need prompt and aggressive treatment, he said.

The new study, published Saturday (March 11) in the New England Journal of Medicine(opens in new tab), included more than 1,600 men in the U.K. who'd been diagnosed with prostate cancer and ranged from 50 to 69 years old at the start of the trial. These patients were randomly divided into three groups that received different cancer treatments: one-third had their prostates removed, one-third got radiation in combination with a short-term hormone blocking treatment, and one-third underwent active monitoring, now commonly called "active surveillance."

During the study, which began in 1999, active surveillance meant regularly measuring levels of a specific protein in the patients' blood. Levels of this protein, called prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tend to rise as prostate cancer progresses. Today, active surveillance can involve additional tests, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and genetic testing, Dr. Oliver Sartor(opens in new tab), medical director of the Tulane Cancer Center, wrote in a commentary(opens in new tab) of the research.

The researchers monitored each participant for 11 to 21 years post-diagnosis, and found that all the patients had a similarly low risk of death, regardless of the treatment they'd received. Overall, 45 participants, or 2.7%, died of prostate cancer. This included 12 people (2.2%) in the surgery group; 16 people (2.9%) in the radiation group; and 17 people (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group; these small differences are not considered statistically significant.

During the roughly 15-year follow-up period, about 330 men in the monitoring group, or 60%, eventually had either surgery or radiation treatment. But waiting to get treatment didn't seem to impact their risk of death. Furthermore, 133 people in the monitoring group never had surgery, radiation or hormone blocking therapy and still survived.

At 15 years post-diagnosis, cancer had metastasized, or spread, in 9.4% of the active-monitoring group, 4.7% of the surgery group and 5% of the radiation group. However, the monitoring group may have fared better if the study had been conducted with today's methods of surveillance, Dr. Stacy Loeb(opens in new tab), a prostate cancer specialist at NYU Langone Health who was not involved in the research, told The Associated Press(opens in new tab). "We have more ways now to help catch that the disease is progressing before it spreads," Loeb said.

It's key to note that "the vast majority of the trial patients were at low risk or favorable intermediate risk and would today be considered appropriate candidates for active surveillance," and only a small fraction of study participants would be considered high-risk and in need of immediate treatment, Sartor wrote in his commentary.

In general, high-risk prostate cancer diagnoses account for only 15% of cases — so most of the time, prostate cancer is of low- to intermediate-risk, CNN reported. For low-risk patients, the potential risks and benefits of surgery and radiation should be carefully weighed, since "more aggressive therapy can result in more harm than good," the study authors concluded.