lunes, 29 de julio de 2019

‘It’s a superpower’: how walking makes us healthier, happier and brainier

Neuroscientist Shane O’Mara believes that plenty of regular walking unlocks the cognitive powers of the brain like nothing else. He explains why you should exchange your gym kit for a pair of comfy shoes and get strolling.
Taking a stroll with Shane O’Mara is a risky endeavour. The neuroscientist is so passionate about walking, and our collective right to go for walks, that he is determined not to let the slightest unfortunate aspect of urban design break his stride. So much so, that he has a habit of darting across busy roads as the lights change. “One of life’s great horrors as you’re walking is waiting for permission to cross the street,” he tells me, when we are forced to stop for traffic – a rude interruption when, as he says, “the experience of synchrony when walking together is one of life’s great pleasures”. He knows this not only through personal experience, but from cold, hard data – walking makes us healthier, happier and brainier.
We are wandering the streets of Dublin discussing O’Mara’s new book, In Praise of Walking, a backstage tour of what happens in our brains while we perambulate. Our jaunt begins at the grand old gates of his workplace, Trinity College, and takes in the Irish famine memorial at St Stephen’s Green, the Georgian mile, the birthplace of Francis Bacon, the site of Facebook’s new European mega-HQ and the salubrious seaside dwellings of Sandymount.
O’Mara, 53, is in his element striding through urban landscapes – from epic hikes across London’s sprawl to more sedate ambles in Oxford, where he received his DPhil – and waxing lyrical about science, nature, architecture and literature. He favours what he calls a “motor-centric” view of the brain – that it evolved to support movement and, therefore, if we stop moving about, it won’t work as well.
This is neatly illustrated by the life cycle of the humble sea squirt which, in its adult form, is a marine invertebrate found clinging to rocks or boat hulls. It has no brain because it has eaten it. During its larval stage, it had a backbone, a single eye and a basic brain to enable it to swim about hunting like “a small, water-dwelling, vertebrate cyclops”, as O’Mara puts it. The larval sea squirt knew when it was hungry and how to move about, and it could tell up from down. But, when it fused on to a rock to start its new vegetative existence, it consumed its redundant eye, brain and spinal cord. Certain species of jellyfish, conversely, start out as brainless polyps on rocks, only developing complicated nerves that might be considered semi-brains as they become swimmers.
Sitting at a desk all day, it’s easy to start feeling like a brainless polyp, whereas walking and talking, as we are this morning, while admiring the Great Sugar Loaf mountain rising beyond the city and a Huguenot cemetery formed in 1693, our minds are fizzing. “Our sensory systems work at their best when they’re moving about the world,” says O’Mara. He cites a 2018 study that tracked participants’ activity levels and personality traits over 20 years, and found that those who moved the least showed malign personality changes, scoring lower in the positive traits: openness, extraversion and agreeableness. There is substantial data showing that walkers have lower rates of depression, too. And we know, says O’Mara, “from the scientific literature, that getting people to engage in physical activity before they engage in a creative act is very powerful. My notion – and we need to test this – is that the activation that occurs across the whole of the brain during problem-solving becomes much greater almost as an accident of walking demanding lots of neural resources.”

jueves, 25 de julio de 2019

Spain's Pedro Sánchez faces decisive vote on future in power




Spanish MPs are set to vote on whether Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez will remain in power following last-ditch talks to form a coalition government.
His Socialist party (PSOE) gained the most seats in April's election, but fell short of a majority.
Mr Sánchez now requires the backing of the left-wing Podemos party and other smaller parties to continue to govern.
If he fails, he has two more months as caretaker to find a solution or face another general election.
It will be the country's fourth in four years.
The Socialist leader lost his first post-election confidence vote on Tuesday, and his party has since been locked in negotiations to secure a new deal with representatives from Podemos and other parties.
While Tuesday's vote required Mr Sánchez to secure an absolute majority of 176 seats in Congress's 350-seat parliament, Thursday's ballot scheduled for 14:25 (12:25 GMT) requires a simple majority of support from lawmakers. However, he only won 124 votes in the initial ballot, whereas 170 MPs voted against him and Podemos abstained.
Parliamentary backing for his coalition would bring weeks of fractious negotiations and political turmoil to an end, giving Mr Sánchez his first full term as prime minister.

What are the sticking points?

In return for joining a coalition, Podemos has asked for key positions such as deputy prime minister and social roles in his cabinet in charge of the environment, equality, employment and economics.


Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias has already agreed not to seek a ministerial position himself, in an attempt to find a deal.
The two leaders have tried to find common ground for the past three months and tensions spilled into the open during a debate at the start of the week, when Mr Iglesias accused the caretaker prime minister of offering only "cosmetic" roles.
Separately, Mr Sánchez has said that Mr Iglesias, whose views on the question of Catalonia's independence starkly differ from his, is "the principal obstacle" to agreeing on a new coalition.
Among the smaller parties with representatives voting in parliament on Thursday are the conservative Popular Party (PP), the right-of-centre Ciudadanos (Citizens), the centre-left separatist Catalan Republican Left (ERC) party and the far-right Vox.
But after last-ditch talks on Wednesday, Podemos warned against raising expectations as there had been "little progress in the PSOE's proposals", arguing that the Socialists wanted to keep social affairs ministries to themselves. The prime minister insisted he had made a good offer.

Why is Catalonia so important?

The future of Spain's semi-autonomous north-eastern region has been politically explosive ever since Catalonia's leaders held an independence referendum in October 2017. The vote had been outlawed by Spain, but the separatist leadership went ahead with it and then declared independence from Spain.
The issue was a key reason why this year's snap election took place, because Catalan separatists withdrew their support at a key moment in February. A dozen Catalan leaders went on trial in Madrid the same month, facing charges including rebellion and sedition, and separatist MPs wanted concessions from the government.
Mr Sánchez has sought to lower tensions with the region and has faced criticism from other political opponents.
His administration has engaged with the pro-independence government, holding talks with current Catalan president Quim Torra - prompting PP leader Pablo Casado to label him "the biggest villain in Spain's democratic history".
Ciudadanos has also accused Mr Sánchez of siding with "enemies of Spain" and wanting to "liquidate" the country.

lunes, 8 de julio de 2019

Language wars: the 19 greatest linguistic spats of all time

What is it about language that gets people so hot under the collar? That drives them to spend hours arguing with strangers on the internet, to go around correcting misspelt signs in the dead of night, or even to threaten acts of violence? The languages we speak are central to our sense of self, so it is not surprising that their finer points can become a battleground. Passionate feelings about what’s right and wrong extend from the use of “disinterested” to what gay people are allowed to call themselves. Here are some of the most memorable rows, spats and controversies.

Apostrophe catastrophe
A so-called “grammar vigilante” has been correcting shop fronts in Bristol, England, for more than a decade. His pet peeve is the confusion of plain old plurals with possessives, which in English are usually marked by an apostrophe followed by an S. Confronted with a sign advertising “Amy’s Nail’s”, he will obliterate the second apostrophe with a sticker. Addressing the potentially illegal nature of his mission in a BBC report, he said: “It’s more of a crime that the apostrophe is wrong in the first place”. Linguist Rob Drummond disagrees: “Fetishising the apostrophe as if its rules are set in stone,” he writes, “and then fostering an environment in which it is acceptable to take pleasure in uncovering other people’s linguistic insecurities is not OK.”

Continue reading this intereting article clicking here:
The Guardian_ Language wars

jueves, 13 de junio de 2019

Chernobyl selfies lead to warning from show's writer

Tourists visiting Chernobyl must be respectful, the creator of the HBO show about the nuclear disaster there says.
Some people visiting the site in Ukraine, where the world's worst nuclear accident happened in 1986, have been taking pictures smiling at the abandoned power plant - one person posted a semi-naked picture.
Craig Mazin said it's "wonderful" that a "wave" of people have been visiting.
But he's asked people to remember "that a terrible tragedy occurred there".
Estimates of the number of people affected vary hugely - the Chernobyl Forum says fewer than 50 died following exposure to radiation, but there could eventually be up to 9,000 deaths linked to the disaster.
"Comport yourselves with respect for all who suffered and sacrificed," Craig wrote on Twitter.
A number of companies run tours to the 30km exclusion zone around Chernobyl, and Pripyat - the abandoned city that was built for Chernobyl's workers and families.
It had a population of 60,000 before the disaster but has been largely deserted ever since - although an estimated 60,000 tourists visited last year.
The exclusion zone spreads from Ukraine and into Belarus and covers an area more than twice the size of London.
Following the popular Sky Atlantic show there has reportedly been an increase in tourism to the zone. Its landmarks now feature in the background of pictures on Instagram.
As we've said, the number of people who died as a result of exposure to radiation is disputed.
A 2005 report from the Chernobyl Forum suggested that fewer than 50 people died as a result of exposure to radiation - but it also estimated that up to 9,000 people could eventually die. Greenpeace puts the figure as high as 93,000.
What's not disputed is that around 5,000 cases of thyroid cancer - most of which were treated and cured - were caused by the contamination.
And that's what Chernobyl's writer wants people to remember.
It's not the first time people have been asked to stop taking questionable selfies at historical sites.
In 2014 an American teenager's selfie at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp went viral for all the wrong reasons.
It wasn't the only selfie to be taken at the camp, where 1.1m people were killed during the Holocaust, or at the Berlin Holocaust memorial.
A website that Photoshopped graphic images from the Holocaust into the selfies was set up in response.
But with the Auschwitz Museum still feeling the need to call people out in 2019, it seems like something that's still happening.
BBC NEWS 12 June 2019

lunes, 10 de junio de 2019

A matter of vaxx: parents don’t have the right to risk their kids’ lives

Choosing not to vaccinate our children is not like deciding what TV programmes they can watch – putting them in danger can not be our choice to make


I'm not going to talk about science. There have been a hundred studies and a thousand articles, dedicating millions of hours to discussing the science behind a simple truth: vaccines are safe and they work.
And if you haven’t been convinced by those already, I’m probably not going to convince you by repeating them here.
Facts don’t convince anyone of anything anymore. Not like they used to, anyway.
But it’s more than that.
Science should be left to the scientists. And when the science of vaccines is left to them, they say that vaccines are safe and they work.
The rest of us are just screaming at each other in the comments section.
Personally, I don’t think that’s productive. Both sides have slogged through to where we are now, and where we are now is that nothing has changed – both sides have dug in further, and one side is much better prepared for an outbreak of measles.
But one thing has changed. These days, the anti-vaxx movement has become an issue of rights, and a parent’s right to make the decisions for their children. That’s what I want to talk about.
These days, with the rise of social media and the constant evolution of technology, it’s never been more important for parents to be vigilant and attentive to their children. At the same time, however, it’s never been easier for parents to tune out – YouTube for the kids, Netflix for the parents, TikTok for granny, and you can all tune out together.
None of us have any idea what will make our child grow up to be happy and successful. We all have thoughts, sure, and plenty of educated guesses, but nobody really knows. There is an entire industry of people out there who are eager to tell you (if you subscribe, guys!) how and why they turned out to be so successful. But they’re just guessing and connecting unrelated dots. They’re looking at stars and drawing constellations. Every time they say, “I’m successful because of X”, it could actually be the opposite: they’re successful in spite of X. Or vice versa.
Parenting is just a series of guesses, and the overall hope that you’re doing the right thing. And that’s terrifying. So, I can understand parents wanting to be proactive and attentive. All you can do is not tune out, and try your best. It’s just that when you’re wrapped up in all that anxiety and pressure, it’s very easy for parents to lose sight of their role along the way.
As a parent, you can decide that your child won’t watch TV, or be christened, or listen to Nickelback. These are your values that you’re passing on to your children, reflected in the decisions you make for them. But these aren’t your decisions. You’re deciding what’s in their best interest, but only because they can’t right now. They’re too young, they don’t understand consequences or that chocolate isn’t a vegetable. You’re making choices for them, but it’s actually their choice, not yours. You’re just in charge of it – temporarily.

Ruin their life

I’m not saying you need to ask your baby’s permission to change their nappy; I’m saying you don’t have the right to make decisions that will ruin their life. Go ahead, keep your children from watching TV or listening to Nickelback; raise them with or without religion, with or without meat. These are values that, if they disagree with them later in life, won’t do any harm to them. They can be undone. When you make a decision that can’t be undone, and that will do harm, the State steps in. Of course they do – it’s not your decision. And this brings us back to vaccines.
I’m not going to argue with you. Because I do understand; you’re trying to be proactive and attentive. But I recently read the Facebook comments below an article about vaccinations.
And as I read through the comments, I imagined all of us – all of the commentators – on a beach somewhere, watching a group of children swimming. Looking out from the beach, I saw a child flailing and thrashing in the water. He was clearly struggling.
“Hey, look!” I cried. “That kid looks like he’s drowning!”
The man next to me looked annoyed and said, “That’s my son.”
“Can he swim?”
The man shook his head. “We kept him out of lessons. Jesus, you can’t trust lifeguards – they’d let him drown in the pool!”
As I started dialing 999, I protested, “You shouldn’t let him out into the water if he can’t swim.”
The man stared at me angrily. “And what about my rights?” he demanded.
“Your . . . what?”
“I know my rights. I have the right to not teach my son how to swim and to let him swim in the ocean. Besides, if you teach your kids how to swim, then what are you so worried about?”
I pointed at his son, who was still flailing dangerously in the water and had drifted towards another group of swimmers. “Well . . . that’s a group of pensioners and cancer patients. They learned how to swim, but they can’t swim well anymore. He’s going to drag one of them under.”
We watched as he drifted towards another group of swimmers.
“Those kids know how to swim,” I said. “But even a good swimmer can be pulled under by a flailing, drowning person.”
“But . . .”
“And now he’s getting closer to that group of babies,” I continued. “They’re too young to learn how to swim. He’s going to drag them under too.”
The man looked startled. “Babies? Why are there babies swimming?”
“Because this metaphor had one last point to make,” I said gravely. “By the way,” I continued, “the rescue service currently saving your child is going to cost a fortune and your child probably won’t forgive you for risking their life to make an unnecessary point about your rights.”
Especially because those rights were never yours in the first place.
The Irish Times June 10 2019