04-13-2025 ~ The attraction to luster is rooted in our evolutionary history and has persisted among prehistoric artifacts, ancient civilizations, and consumer culture.

Our ancestors’ ability to recognize water sources was crucial to their survival. As a result, the attraction to lustrous materials is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history and is evident among prehistoric artifacts, ancient civilizations, and modern consumer culture.

During the Pliocene Epoch, early hominins likely traveled between semi-permanent rain pools, restricting their movement to warmer and wetter regions. During the Late Pleistocene, humid forests declined and grassland-savanna habitats expanded. [1] Thus, the ability to detect water sources became extremely important. In the dry savanna conditions of East Africa, early humans relied on small lakes and rain pools to survive seasonal droughts, and many fossil hominid remains have been found near ancient lakeshores, supporting the idea that access to water played a key role in early human migration. The savanna hypothesis suggests that the expansion of African grasslands led directly to the divergence of hominins from apes and the emergence of the genus Homo. [2]

Natural selection likely chose individuals who could recognize water and wet surfaces, and, according to evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk’s radiator theory, the success of finding drinking water daily to prevent dehydration and conserve energy played a substantial role in shaping hominin evolution. [3]

Water still significantly impacts our neurological system, influencing physiological and psychological well-being. Psychology professor Richard Coss and his former student, Craig Keller, conducted a pair of studies published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology in 2022 showing that “gazing at bodies of water can help lower your heart rate, blood pressure, and increase feelings of relaxation.”[4]

The first of Coss and Keller’s studies showed that viewing a swimming pool lowers heart rate and blood pressure versus looking at a street sign and a tree in a parking lot.

The second study measured heart rate and blood pressure when viewing six sites with different amounts of visible water. Viewing water compared to the adjacent ground produced effects consistent with a relaxation response or a decrease in heart rate and blood pressure. Moreover, the studies found that looking at wider portions of water produced higher states of relaxation than narrow portions of water, suggesting that abundant amounts of water have a greater potential to limit dehydration. Clear water also produced a higher state of relaxation than murky water, which may be linked to the health of the water, as clear water is less likely to contain harmful bacteria and produce an unfavorable future state, such as illness.[5]

Meanwhile, a 2010 study by Richard Coss investigated the connection between glossy surfaces and their association with water or wetness. Coss designed an experiment using four different papers with varying surface finishes: matte watercolor paper, glossy silk-screen paper, gritty sandpaper, and sparkly glitter paper designed to be reminiscent of an ocean surface. The study’s participants were asked to examine the surfaces using a questionnaire to assess their wet and dry connotations as well as their overall attitude toward each paper type.

The results demonstrated that glossy surfaces appear significantly wetter than sparkling surfaces, and both the glossy and sparkling surfaces were perceived as wetter than the matte and sandy finishes. The participants’ assessment of the sparkling surface, having been rated lower on the wetness scale than the glossy silk-screen surface, suggests that sparkle does not consistently indicate the presence of moisture.[6]

This discrepancy may stem from the historical uncertainty of sparkling surfaces as an indicator of water since sparkly surfaces can be found in both pools of water and dry materials, such as quartz crystals and other rocky formations. Sparkly surfaces, while being visually stimulating, do not reliably indicate wetness unless they are accompanied by a glossy visual texture. The study’s findings reinforce the point that glossy surfaces convey strong optical information about moisture.

Some researchers have previously assumed that children’s aesthetic preferences were highly influenced by media consumption created by adults, along with innate and learned preferences. However, other research has found that many of these preferences, especially regarding human and animal faces, may develop in early infancy.[7] Researchers Katrien Meert, Mario Pandelaere, and Vanessa M. Patrick conducted a series of experiments—published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in 2014—to expand upon this innate quality of having certain aesthetic preferences and establish that there is an inherent preference for glossy surfaces among humans.

Their first experiment demonstrated the preference for glossiness among both adults and children. Leaflets were given to participants, half printed on glossy paper and the other half on matte or non-glossy paper. The participants were asked to arrange the leaflets according to their preference, and the results showed a statistically significant preference for glossy leaflets over non-glossy ones. The latter half of the first experiment investigated the preference for glossiness in young children, using pictures of Santa Claus, half of which were glossy and the other half non-glossy. The children also significantly preferred glossy pictures over non-glossy pictures.

The second experiment tested whether the preference for glossiness was related to the content of the images presented on glossy paper. A random combination of four landscapes was provided to the participants, half printed on glossy paper and the other half on non-glossy paper. This was done to evaluate either the image’s content, the type of paper, or both. The type of paper influenced the responses of all respondents, and glossy images obtained a higher “liking” score. When the type of paper changed, all participants changed their preferences to the image on glossy paper, regardless of the participants’ previous choices and the depicted landscapes.[8]The two experiments show that liking glossiness manifests before exposure to contemporary cultural stereotypes.

The longstanding affinity for gloss and luster is showcased well by the Aurignacian culture, which is marked by a greater diversification within toolmaking and artistic innovation. This culture spread from the Atlantic Coast to the Iranian Plateau and Western Eurasia and spanned from 43,000 to 30,000 years ago, during which Homo sapiens produced objects of artistic representation.

Luster is a common shared quality of the raw materials chosen by the Aurignacian to make personal ornaments.[9] Such materials included ivory, soapstone, talc, chlorite, mother of pearl, amber, and even polished tooth enamel from adult human teeth. Ivory is lustrous when manipulated through polishing and was often found during this period, especially in the form of basket-shaped beads. Soapstone had no technological purpose and was not found anywhere before the Aurignacian culture, yet it was sourced from the faraway Pyrenees Mountains, presumably for its surface and visual appeal. Talc and chlorite have a soapy texture when polished, mother of pearl is shiny and iridescent, and the Aurignacian produced some of the oldest known amber pendants.

According to Randall White, early humans manipulated materials to create objects for visual pleasure, a phenomenon exemplified by the members of the Aurignacian culture who actively sought out and crafted objects with a lustrous sheen. Another example comes from the Blombos Cave in South Africa, which dates from 82,000 to 75,000 years ago. People here produced evidence regarding the preference for glossy textures even before the Aurignacian culture. An analysis of 28 bone tools from the cave identified three carefully polished points. The high polish gives a distinctive appearance to these artifacts, but the high shine has no apparent function and was likely done to give the points “added value.”[10]

In southwest France, excavations across multiple archaeological sites have uncovered polished, spherical gravels dating to the Upper Gravettian and Solutrean periods. These gravels have garnered interest because of their lustrous appearance and, in some instances, deliberate placement. The 2023 journal article “Multiproxy Analysis of Upper Paleolithic Lustrous Gravels Supports Their Anthropogenic Use” studied key sites such as Fourneau du Diable, Casserole, Pech de la Boissière, Laugerie Haute, and the Landry site, which was excavated in 2011.

Detailed analysis of these gravels confirms that their polished surfaces were intentional modifications. Experimental replication of the polishing process was done by tumbling gravels with animal skins or leather, ocher, and fat. In contrast, abrasion against silt from the Landy site did not produce the same results and ruled out environmental causes of weathering. Furthermore, the uniform amount or degree of shine on each archaeological gravel supported the hypothesis that they were deliberately selected, manipulated, and curated over time.

The high concentration of lustrous gravels in areas associated with domestic activities suggests that their placement was purposeful and meaningful within prehistoric communities. The deliberate selection and modification of these gravels indicate that during the Upper Paleolithic, humans actively pursued and valued lustrous surfaces. These findings align with the broader evidence of prehistoric humans’ appreciation of shiny surfaces.[11]

Throughout history, many ancient civilizations flourished on riverbanks and in river valleys, such as the Sumerians and the Indus Valley Civilization—reliable access to fresh water supported agriculture, trade, and large population growth. The evolutionary preference for both water and glossy surfaces remains evident in modern human behavior, as many modern cities are situated near water, and the pursuit of shine persists.

People are consistently drawn to landscapes featuring water in both reality and paintings. Children prefer paintings depicting water as a central element even at a young age, according to a study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology in 1983.[12] Real estate trends also reflect this bias, as homes with aquatic views, whether lakes, rivers, or oceans, are significantly more desirable and often valued at higher prices. A pair of studies published in 2010 investigating preferences in both natural and built environments showcased a strong preference for places incorporating aquatic features and a stronger willingness to book a hotel room with water views.[13] Individuals also tend to associate water with positive memories, linking it to childhood experiences such as swimming and playing near streams.[14]

Author Wallace J. Nichols explores water as a “therapeutic landscape” in his book, Blue Mind, which analyzes studies that suggest being near water can have powerful effects on the human psyche.[15] The book provides evidence that water generates a meditative state more powerful than hypnosis techniques and makes us healthier, happier, and more creative.

The association between glossiness and luxury is prevalent in modern marketing strategies. Research by Rui (Juliet) Zhu and Joan Meyers-Levy explores how display surfaces influence the perceptions of products from the consumers’ perspective. They demonstrated that the material beneath a product can alter how trendy, natural, or modern it appears. These results suggest that the glossiness of a store display, when comparing shiny glass versus wood, has a positive impact on the products displayed on it and increases the connotation of modernity.[16]

Understanding the evolutionary basis of the preference for symmetry, gloss, and luster can allow designers and mental health professionals to create environments that align with our deeply rooted preferences. As neuroscience continues to emerge in the design landscape, designers can use scientific advancements to create better designs that consider their impact and potential benefits on human emotions and psychology.

Notes

[1] Smail, Irene E.; Rector, Amy L.; Robinson, Joshua R.; et al. (2025). “Pliocene Climatic Change and the Origins of Homo at Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia.” Annals of Human Biology. Vol. 52, No. 1.
[2] Bobe, René, and Behrensmeyer, Anna K. (2004). “The Expansion of Grassland Ecosystems in Africa in Relation to Mammalian Evolution and the Origin of the Genus Homo.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Vol. 207, Issues 3-4, pp. 399-420.
[3] Falk, Dean. (1990). “Brain Evolution in Homo: The ‘Radiator’ Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 333-344.
[4] Coss, Richard Gerrit, and Keller, Craig. (2022). “Transient Decreases in Blood Pressure and Heart Rate With Increased Subjective Level of Relaxation While Viewing Water Compared With Adjacent Ground.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 81, Issue 3.
[5] Orians, Gordon H., and Heerwagen, Judith H. (1992). “Evolved Responses to Landscapes.” In Barkow, Jerome H.; Cosmides, Leda; and Tooby, John ( eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, pp. 555-579. Oxford University Press.
[6] Coss, Richard G. (1990). “All that Glistens: Water Connotations in Surface Finishes.” Ecological Psychology. Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 367-380.
[7] Langlois, Judith H.; Roggman, Lori A.; and Rieser-Danner, Loretta (1990). “Infants’ Differential Social Responses to Attractive and Unattractive Faces.” Developmental Psychology. Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 153-159.
[8] Meert, Katrien, Pandelaere, Mario, and Patrick, Vanessa M. (2014). “Taking a Shine to It: How the Preference for Glossy Stems From an Innate Need for Water.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 195-206.
[9] White, Randall. (2007). “Systems of Personal Ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological Challenges and New Observations.” Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans, pp. 287-302. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
[10] d’Errico, Francesco., and Henshilwood, Christopher S. (2007). “Additional Evidence for Bone Technology in the Southern African Middle Stone Age.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 142-163.
[11] Geis, Lila; d’Errico, Francesco; Jordan, Fiona M.; et al. (2023). “Multiproxy Analysis of Upper Palaeolithic Lustrous Gravels Supports Their Anthropogenic Use.” PLOS One.
[12] Zube, Ervin H.; Pitt, David G.; and Evans, Gary W. (1983). “A Lifespan Developmental Study of Landscape Assessment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 115-128.
[13] White, Mathew; Smith, Amanda; Humphryes, Kelly; et al. (2010). “Blue Space: The Importance of Water for Preference, Affect, and Restorativeness Ratings of Natural and Built Scenes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 482-493.
[14] Waite, Sue. (2007). “‘Memories Are Made of This’: Some Reflections on Outdoor Learning and Recall.” Education. Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 333-347.
[15] Nichols, Wallace J. (2014). Blue Mind: The Surprising Science That Shows How Being Near, In, On, or Under Water Can Make You Happier, Healthier, More Connected, and Better at What You Do. Little, Brown.
[16] Zhu, Rui (Juliet), and Meyers-Levy, Joan. (2009). “The Influence of Self-View on Context Effects: How Display Fixtures Can Affect Product Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 37-45.

By Irina Matuzava

Author Bio: Irina Matuzava is a writer and researcher. She is a contributor to the Human Bridges project.

Credit Line: This article was produced by Human Bridges.

04-13-2025 ~ Trump’s tariffs threaten to widen inequality in the US, making the rich richer and impoverishing the working class.

Since assuming office, the Trump administration has taken actions resembling those of an absolutist state: undermining civil rights and democracy at home while introducing a reciprocal tariffs plan that has unleashed chaos around the world. Indeed, Donald Trump’s “liberation day,” a declaration of economic war on the rest of the planet, wiped several trillions of dollars in market value from Wall Street on April 4, the very same day it was announced, and ignited fears of destructive trade wars. After a brief recovery, global markets tumbled again as Trump imposed a 125 percent tariff on China. Furthermore, his plan to “make America wealthy again” via tariffs fuels fears of a U.S. recession — and even of a global economic meltdown.

However, Trump has now reversed course in his global trade war by announcing a 90-day pause of “reciprocal tariffs” for most countries except China. Whether this was due to market backlash or constitutes a market manipulation scheme on the part of Trump is hard to say. But confusion still reigns in the business community and the trade war with China will surely put the global economy on edge.

The poor and the middle classes will bear most of the burden of Trump’s tariffs, political economist James K. Boyce told Truthout in the interview that follows. Boyce contends that tariffs alone will not make the U.S. trade deficit disappear, and that Trump’s obsession with tariffs could start the next Great Depression.

James K. Boyce is professor emeritus of economics and a senior fellow at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is the author of scores of books and academic articles, and the recipient of the 2024 Global Inequality Research Award and the 2017 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. The interview that follows has been lightly edited for clarity.

C. J. Polychroniou: Trump’s economic agenda focuses on “border security,” deregulation, energy, tax cuts and tariffs. Some have described the strategy behind Trump’s political economy as neo-mercantilism, but it also seems to be strengthening neoliberal economic policy at home. Can we call it a strategy of nationalist neoliberalism?

James K. Boyce: In its heyday, beginning under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, neoliberalism was the reigning economic ideology both nationally and internationally. In the U.S., its hallmark was downsizing the state’s role in the economy in favor of “free” markets. Internationally, its hallmark was the reduction of barriers to the movement of goods, services and capital in favor of “free” trade. Both served an underlying agenda of increasing the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.

It turns out that these two components — the national and the international — are separable. Trump is doubling down on the neoliberal agenda at home, while ripping it asunder internationally. China, as the economist Branko Milanovic recently observed, has followed the opposite strategy.

The combination of greater state control in international trade and downsizing the economic role of the state at home does not yet have a widely accepted name. Most important is understanding what is happening.

Trump has had a longtime obsession with trade deficits, so it should not be surprising that he has announced sweeping tariffs on goods imported from the rest of the world. He recently claimed that “for decades our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far.” Can you discuss the myths and realities of the U.S. trade deficit? Are trade deficits necessarily bad? Do they make a country poor?

The U.S. has been running massive trade deficits since the Reagan era. This has been good for some Americans — most notably corporate elites who profited from low-cost foreign labor and less regulation aiming to protect workers and the environment, and bad for others — most notably workers in manufacturing industries that were hard-hit by imports. Trade deficits do not necessarily “make a country poor” — on the contrary, for a time, they allow a country to live beyond its means, importing more than it exports and therefore consuming more than it produces; but they do make some people poorer.

In a normal country, it would be impossible to run enormous trade deficits for so many years. Imports need to be paid for in hard currency — that is, an internationally acceptable medium of exchange. If export earnings do not cover the import bill, the country eventually depletes its hard currency reserves, and a devaluation of the national currency ensues. This makes imports more expensive at home and exports more affordable abroad, curbing the deficit. This relationship between trade deficits and foreign exchange rates is textbook Economics 101.

Capital inflows, in the form of foreign investment and foreign borrowing, can shore up the exchange rate for a time, in effect financing the trade deficit. But sooner or later these inflows must be repaid, with profit repatriation in the case of investment, and with interest in the case of debt — again, in hard currency, at which point the trade deficit becomes unsustainable. The inexorable result is what economists used to call “structural adjustment”: the structure of the nation’s economy adjusts as more resources are shifted to produce tradable goods and services (exports and import substitutes) away from non-tradables, such as spending on health and education.

However, in two respects the U.S. is not a normal economy. First, it creates its own hard currency. Second, and more important for our story, the U.S. was able to continue drawing in foreign capital by serving as a “safe haven” both for clean money from legitimate sources and for dirty money from illicit sources including embezzlement and organized crime. These inflows not only supported the dollar’s exchange rate but also escalated prices in real estate markets, especially in major metropolitan areas.

But to imagine that massive trade deficits can persist forever is to live in a never-never land. Just as Peter Pan insisted that he would never grow up, most U.S. politicians and economists bought into the fantasy that perpetual trade deficits had become the new normal. This view ignored not only the laws of economics but also the political realities that ultimately contributed to Trump’s rise to power. The illusion that everything was hunky-dory up to now has been shattered.

How do tariffs work, and who will they impact? Also, is there anything behind Trump’s claim that tariffs will bring in enough revenue to “make America wealthy again?”

Tariffs raise the price of imports, forcing consumers to tighten their belts and encouraging them to buy domestically produced goods and services instead. Sometimes the import substitutes are readily available, but sometimes they are not, at least not until industries can be built or rebuilt to produce them. Either way, prices to consumers go up — in the first case by a little, in the second by a lot.

The Trump tariffs amount to a $750 billion sales tax on imports, as Diane Swonk, the chief economist for KPMG U.S., recently put it. Like sales taxes in general, the tariffs will hit the poor harder than the middle class, and the middle class harder than the rich. Those living on tighter budgets have less of a cushion to protect themselves against the impacts of higher prices. They also typically devote a larger fraction of their household income to consumption rather than savings. In other words, the impact of across-the-board tariffs is regressive.

Trump and his squad of cheerleaders are telling Americans that the short-term pain of the tariffs will be worth it for the long-term gain. But tariffs alone, no matter how draconian, will not banish the U.S. trade deficit as long as foreign capital keeps flowing into the country unchecked. By propping up the dollar, the capital inflow will continue to enable the trade deficit. Simply relying on tariffs to curb spending on imports is like trying to plug the drain in a sink while leaving the faucet wide open. A serious adjustment policy would focus first and foremost on turning off the tap, by implementing controls on capital inflows. But so far, this has not been part of the Trump agenda.

As to revenue, tariffs can be a useful way for governments to fund themselves, particularly in low-income countries where other taxes are not yet well-developed. Tariffs were the main source of federal government revenue in the U.S. prior to the 20th century. But for tariffs to serve this revenue-raising purpose, the imports to which they are applied must continue; if imports shrink, the revenue shrinks along with them. In other words, there is a core tension between the goal of using tariffs as a source of revenue and using them as a spur to the substitution of imports by a revival of domestic manufacturing.

The idea that Trump’s tariffs will “make America wealthy again” is a bit silly. As always, the policy will make some people richer and some poorer. We know that the price increases triggered by the tariffs will hit the poor and middle class hardest. The net effect depends on how the tariff revenue is used. If it were used to increase spending on things that benefit working people — like housing, education and health, or recycled directly to households as equal per-person dividends — that would help to offset the impact of the price increases. Instead, the Trump administration says it wants to cut income taxes, in which case the lion’s share of the benefits will go into the pockets of the uppermost strata of the country’s income pyramid. These people are already wealthy, and the shift from progressive income taxes to regressive tariffs will make them even wealthier. This is the reality thinly concealed by the smokescreen of making “the country” wealthy.

What’s the logic behind imposing tariffs on poor countries that have little use for many of the goods produced by the U.S.?

There is a difference between the nation’s trade deficit — the trade balance with the rest of the world — and the trade balance with any one country. Even if we had no overall trade deficit, there would be some countries from which we import more than we export in return, and some for which the reverse is true. Taking the trade balances with individual countries as the basis for tariff policy, as the Trump administration is doing, is a clumsy way of addressing the overall trade deficit.

There is a place for smart tariffs as part of a strategy to build a strong and resilient economy, alongside other tools of industrial policy such as channeling credit on attractive terms to key sectors. Smart tariffs differ from across-the-board tariffs in that they are targeted to counter predatory pricing and to penalize trading partners that violate labor rights and the right to a clean and safe environment. But the Trump tariffs are a far cry from being smart.

There is a difference, too, between putting tariffs on imports from countries with robust economies — here I would include China and the European Union — and imposing them on some of the poorest countries in the world, where economic setbacks come at the highest human cost. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff hit-list includes the sub-Saharan African nations of Mozambique, Madagascar and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which have per capita incomes of less than US$2 per day and contribute less than one-tenth of 1 percent to the U.S. trade deficit.

Why are markets crashing and how likely is it that Trump’s sweeping tariffs will cause the U.S. and global economies to fall into a recession this year?

The turbulence that Trump’s tariffs have unleashed in stock markets worldwide is not surprising. The escalating U.S. tariffs, coupled with the retaliatory tariffs they are provoking from other countries, threaten to seriously disrupt world trade and hence the world economy. In the absence of abrupt policy reversals, which cannot be ruled out, recession seems to be a likely outcome. In the worse-case scenario, we could see a depression unlike anything since the 1930s.

The European Union is the United States’ largest trading partner. How should Europe respond to Trump’s tariffs? Retaliate or capitulate?

If I were charting EU trade policy at this time, I would clearly regard the U.S. as an unreliable partner. Retaliatory measures, particularly if strategically focused on key sectors in the U.S. economy, might eventually encourage the Trump administration to relent. But such predictions must be hedged with a wide margin of uncertainty. What would make no sense would be for the EU and other countries to generalize the trade war beyond the U.S. by imposing across-the-board tariffs on each other as well. At the same time, however, the present turmoil dramatically exposes the dangers of over-reliance on foreign trade to meet a nation’s essential needs, as did the global supply chain disruptions of the pandemic not long ago. We should not let the follies of Trump’s tariffs overshadow the follies of the gung-ho globalization that preceded them and helped to set the stage for the current debacle. Whatever the outcome of the current crisis, in the future I think we will see moves toward greater self-reliance in key strategic sectors, like food, energy and pharmaceuticals, in many parts of the world. This will not be an entirely bad thing.

Trump reversed course in his global trade war by announcing a 90-day pause on “reciprocal tariffs” for most countries except for China. What’s behind this pause, in your view?

This sequence of events — the shocking announcement, the resulting economic tailspin, followed by the pause — is part-and-parcel of the Trump administration’s style of governance, sometimes called “flooding the zone.” Feints, jabs, bombshells, abrupt reversals — all are part of the mix. But beneath the day-to-day churn, we see the systematic unfolding of a strategy to further concentrate wealth and power in the hands of ruling elites. In this respect, the combination of downsizing the state at home coupled with greater state intervention in international trade is not paradoxical: both serve the same remorseless goal.

Source: https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-tariffs-buck-the-global-neoliberal-order-but-still-serve-the-1-percent/

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a columnist for Global Policy Journal and a regular contributor to Truthout. He has published scores of books, including Marxist Perspectives on Imperialism: A Theoretical Analysis; Perspectives and Issues in International Political Economy (ed.); and Socialism: Crisis and Renewal (ed.), and over 1,000 articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into a multitude of languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021); Illegitimate Authority: Facing the Challenges of Our Time (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2023); and A Livable Future Is Possible: Confronting the Threats to Our Survival (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2024).

04-09-2025 ~ Russian and Ukrainian soldiers will eventually largely lay down their arms, but as the Soviet Afghanistan War shows, returning from the frontlines causes its own issues.

Two years into his prison term for a 2020 murder, Ivan Rossomakhin was recruited into a Russian private military company (PMC) in exchange for freedom. He returned home from Ukraine in 2023 and, within days, killed an 85-year-old woman in a nearby town. One week after beginning his new sentence in August 2024, he was redrafted and sent back to the front.

His crime marks one of many committed by convicts pardoned to serve in the army and Russian troops returning home. “A survey of Russian court records by the independent media outlet Verstka found that at least 190 criminal cases were initiated against pardoned Wagner recruits in 2023,” stated an April 2024 New York Times article.

Growing concerns point to a potentially worse repeat of the “Afghan syndrome” experienced by Soviet veterans of the 1979-1989 war in Afghanistan. Many of the roughly 642,000 Soviet soldiers who served returned as outcasts to a society eager to forget an unpopular war. Many turned to addiction and alcoholism, alongside organized crime, amplified further by the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Additionally, Chechen veterans of the Afghan War used their combat experience to fiercely resist Russia in the first Chechen war (1994-1996).

The war in Ukraine is producing an even larger and more battle-hardened generation of veterans. Russian casualties surpassed 15,000 during almost five months of the war, exceeding a decade of Soviet losses in Afghanistan. A January 2025 New York Times article estimates that around 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers were killed by December 2024, while 150,000 Russian soldiers lost their lives until November of that year. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands have been wounded, and millions have been cycled through the front lines. Most survivors will have some form of PTSD, further desensitized by the glorification of brutal combat and torture footage on social media.

Ukrainian soldiers were “experiencing intense symptoms of psychological stress,” according to a 2023 Washington Post article. Meanwhile, in 2024, Deutsche Welle reported that “According to the Russian Health Ministry, 11,000 Russian military personnel who had taken part in the war against Ukraine, as well as their family members, sought psychological help within a six-month period in 2023.”

Reintegrating these men into society will be an uphill battle for the Russian and Ukrainian governments, with lingering wariness from past failures. In December 2022, Russian Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko vowed to prevent a repeat of the Afghan syndrome and reintegrate veterans back into civilian life. As the war grinds on, however, its consequences are already unfolding. Both Moscow and Kyiv are managing ongoing troop rotations while preparing for the eventual mass return of soldiers—and exploring how to use them for political and military ends.

Crime and Unrest
For Soviet Afghan veterans, dismissive rhetoric about the war and limited support upon their return created deep resentment. Before coming to power in 1985, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called the war a mistake, and it took until 1994 for Russian Afghan veterans to receive the same status as World War II veterans. Only in 2010 did Russia designate the end of the conflict as a state holiday.

The Kremlin has taken a different approach with Ukraine war veterans, venerating them as the nation’s “new elite” in a do-or-die struggle against the West. Alongside extensive media praise, soldiers have been fast-tracked to important government and business roles. Despite strained social services, the government has provided benefits to returned and fallen servicemen’s families to prevent unrest.

The Kremlin’s decision to use prison labor to meet troop numbers—an approach it avoided during the Afghan War—has already caused a serious fallout. By 2023, more than 100,000 prisoners had been recruited, many joining Wagner, Russia’s most notorious private military company. Though Wagner was later absorbed and reorganized after its armed rebellion against the Russian military later that year, its ex-convict soldiers remain a source of public outrage, committing some of the most serious violent offenses upon their return and contributing to a general rise in crime. “Numerous shootouts have occurred in Moscow, and the army is increasingly merging with organized crime,” stated a 2024 report in the Eurasia Daily Monitor.

While the issue is drawing increasing public attention, Russia’s internal security services, including the National Guard (Rosgvardiya), are already stretched thin, tasked with patrolling occupied Ukrainian territories while reinforcing front-line units. Their burden could grow heavier if returning Chechen soldiers, whom Moscow has deployed extensively in Ukraine, choose to revisit their independence ambitions. Other nationalist and extremist movements, aided by hardened soldiers, risk resurfacing.

Russia’s reliance on criminal networks for logistical and financial support in its war has only emboldened these groups. A 2024 shootout just blocks from the Kremlin in 2024, linked to “corporate violence,” evoked the chaos of the 1990s. “Russia’s economy, strained by sanctions and the ongoing war, is creating an atmosphere where business elites are increasingly willing to resort to drastic measures for survival. In the 1990s, oligarchs, criminal gangs, and corrupt officials thrived in an environment where the legal system was powerless,” stated the Moscow Times.

With few well-paying job prospects, returning soldiers may be tempted to join existing groups or create their own, destabilizing Russia’s criminal networks that are deeply integrated into Putin’s power structure.

Ukraine faces similar challenges. Though Kyiv was slower and more restrained in deploying prisoner battalions, reintegrating them into society will not be easy. Authorities in the country are working to prevent powerful domestic criminal organizations from absorbing returning soldiers while contending with the threat of armed resistance in Russian-leaning regions.

The Ukrainian government has been mindful in honoring its soldiers but has witnessed a surge in attacks on recruitment offices, including four attacks in five days in February 2025. While Russia’s recruitment efforts also faced some backlash, Russia has avoided large-scale conscription (despite some coercion). In contrast, Ukraine has relied heavily on mandatory enlistment, driving increasing antagonism toward recruitment measures—tensions that will continue building and could spread after the war.

Private Military Companies
The war is already providing a massive boost to a burgeoning global private military industry, which is likely to expand after the conflict’s conclusion. Private military company recruits have long participated in a multinational market—some Russian Afghan veterans claim they were contracted to serve with American forces in Afghanistan after 2001. However, the sheer number of Russian and Ukrainian veterans with combat experience could revolutionize the industry, much like the collapse of the Soviet Union and resulting surplus of military personnel did.

Before 2015, Russian PMCs were limited to Ukraine, Senegal, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo but have since expanded to around 30 countries. Unlike the mass-scale, technology-driven Ukrainian conflict, smaller PMCs can operate effectively in other regions, and their deployment has already contributed to the French military’s withdrawal from Africa in recent years.

Ukraine’s private military sector is similarly growing and, in the future, may find favor with European countries that backed Kyiv during the war. Given Europe’s ongoing struggle to meet military recruitment needs, it is likely that Ukrainian veterans may be used to address this issue.

In Ukraine and Russia, demobilized men have often been employed by oligarchs for their own purposes, a trend that emerged in the 1990s. This issue resurfaced in 2015 when Ukrainian billionaire Igor Kolomoisky used PMCs to combat Russian-backed separatists, as well to protect his own financial interests, culminating in an armed standoff at a state oil company. The incident showed how privatized military power can easily slip beyond government control—something Russia later experienced with Wagner’s rebellion in 2023.

Reintegration
After the instability caused by Soviet Afghan veterans throughout the 1990s, Russian authorities began taking more concrete steps to integrate them, rehabilitate their image, and harness their potential. In 1999, the Russian Alliance of Veterans of Afghanistan helped create what would become the Putin-backed United Russia party (though he is now independent). Afghan and Chechen war veterans also joined OMON, Russia’s special police force used to suppress protests, while other paramilitary veteran groups aided in Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 when military force was limited.

More recently, Afghan veteran organizations have been integral to supporting the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine by providing volunteers (with Ukraine pooling their Afghan veterans) and drumming up support. The evolution of the movement from disillusioned anti-war veterans into some of the Ukraine war’s strongest backers shows the effectiveness of its refurbishment and the Kremlin’s recognition of their value.

It is no surprise, then, that the Kremlin has been actively preventing the formation of independent veteran organizations from the current war in Ukraine. This action of centralizing the veterans into formal initiatives ensures that no group can challenge the government authority, and they can be organized and used during future conflicts.

The attitudes of returning servicemen on both sides will also be shaped by the war’s outcome. Conflicts viewed as futile, with waning public approval—such as the U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan or the Soviet war in Afghanistan—leave a lasting psychological toll on veterans, raising the potential for suicide and social unrest. Beyond the staggering civilian and combatant casualties, these wars bred resentment among returning soldiers, many of whom struggled with the sense that their service was part of failed wars of aggression.

The framing of victory by political leaders, the media, and society is, therefore, essential. Soldiers who believe they fought in a just and successful war are more likely to reintegrate with a sense of purpose, compared to a losing side feeling abandoned and embittered. The defeated will likely harbor greater animosity toward its government, have grievances over inadequate support, and face a heightened risk of social instability—making both sides inclined to claim victory.

It may be in the best interest of both Moscow and Kyiv to avoid declaring an end to the war and pursuing demobilization, lest they be seen as admitting defeat and triggering the return of restless and unemployed soldiers. With the Russian and Ukrainian economies now heavily oriented toward war, a rapid end would trigger economic shocks.

An inconclusive war that gradually winds down, however, may allow veterans to slowly reintegrate into society, as governments praise their service to generate goodwill. Others will be encouraged by Moscow and Kyiv to seek outlets in other conflicts, exporting combat-ready men rather than bringing them home.

By John P. Ruehl

Author Bio: John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022.

Credit Line: This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

04-05-2025 ~ The competition among top AI models is transforming how we work, create, and communicate. But as these systems grow smarter and more accessible, new questions emerge about cost, sustainability, and responsible development in a rapidly evolving landscape.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has seen rapid growth, transforming industries and daily life. From chatbots to advanced generative models, AI’s capabilities continue to expand, driven by powerful companies investing heavily in research and development. “The development of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone,” wrote Bill Gates in 2023. “It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other.”

In 2025, companies such as OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and emerging challengers like DeepSeek have pushed the boundaries of what large language models (LLMs) can do. Moreover, corporate solutions from Microsoft and Meta are making AI tools more accessible to enterprises and developers alike. This article explores the latest AI models available to the public, their advantages and drawbacks, and how they compare in the competitive AI landscape.

The Power and Performance of AI Models
AI models rely on extensive computational resources, particularly large language models (LLMs) that require vast datasets and processing power. The leading AI models undergo complex training procedures that involve billions of parameters, consuming significant energy and infrastructure.

Key AI players invest in cutting-edge hardware and optimization strategies to improve efficiency while maintaining high performance. The balance between computational power, speed, and affordability is a significant factor in differentiating these AI models.

The Competitive Landscape: Top AI Models

OpenAI’s ChatGPT

ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, is one of the most recognizable and widely used AI models in the world. Built with a dialogue-driven format, ChatGPT is designed to answer follow-up questions, challenge incorrect premises, admit mistakes, and reject inappropriate requests. Its versatility has made it a leading AI tool for both casual and professional use, spanning industries such as customer service, content creation, programming, and research.

ChatGPT is ideal for a wide range of users, including writers, business professionals, educators, developers, and researchers. Its free-tier accessibility makes it an excellent starting point for casual users, while businesses, content creators, and developers can leverage its advanced models for enhanced productivity and automation.

It is also among the most user-friendly AI models available, featuring a clean interface, intuitive responses, and seamless interaction across devices. However, organizations that require custom AI models or stricter data privacy controls may find its closed-source nature restrictive, particularly compared to open-source alternatives like Meta’s LLaMA.

The latest version, GPT-4o, is available for free-tier users and offers a strong balance of speed, reasoning, and text generation capabilities. For users seeking enhanced performance, ChatGPT Plus provides priority access and faster response times at a monthly subscription cost.

For professionals and businesses requiring more robust capabilities, ChatGPT Pro unlocks advanced reasoning features through the o1 pro mode, which includes enhanced voice functionality and improved performance on complex queries.

Developers looking to integrate ChatGPT into applications can access its API, a type of software interface. Pricing starts at approximately $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens for GPT-4o mini, while the more powerful o1 models come at a higher cost. A token is defined as a fundamental unit of data, like a word or subword, that an AI model processes to understand and generate text.

One of ChatGPT’s greatest strengths is its versatility and conversational memory. It can handle a broad range of tasks, from casual conversation and creative writing to technical problem-solving, coding assistance, and business automation. When memory is enabled, ChatGPT can retain context across interactions, allowing for a more personalized user experience.

Another key advantage is its proven user base—with hundreds of millions of users worldwide, ChatGPT has undergone continuous refinement based on real-world feedback, improving its accuracy and usability. Additionally, GPT-4o’s multimodal capabilities allow it to process text, images, audio, and video, making it a comprehensive AI tool for content creation, analysis, and customer engagement.

While a free version exists, the most powerful features require paid subscriptions, which may limit accessibility for smaller businesses, independent developers, and startups. Another drawback is an occasional lag in real-time updates; even though ChatGPT has web-browsing capabilities, it may struggle with the most recent or fast-changing information. Lastly, its proprietary model means users have limited control over modifications or customization, as they must adhere to OpenAI’s data policies and content restrictions.

Google’s Gemini

Google’s Gemini series is renowned for its multimodal capabilities and its ability to handle extensive context, making it a versatile tool for both personal and enterprise-level applications.

General consumers and productivity users benefit from Gemini’s deep integration with Google Search, Gmail, Docs, and Assistant, making it an excellent tool for research, email drafting, and task automation. Business and enterprise users find value in Gemini’s integration with Google Workspace, enhancing collaboration across Drive, Sheets, and Meet. Developers and AI researchers can leverage its capabilities through Google Cloud and Vertex AI, making it a strong choice for building AI applications and custom models. Creative professionals can take advantage of its multimodal abilities, working with text, images, and video. Meanwhile, students and educators benefit from Gemini’s ability to summarize, explain concepts, and assist with research, making it a powerful academic tool.

Google Gemini is highly accessible, especially for those already familiar with Google services. Its seamless integration across Google’s ecosystem allows for effortless adoption in both personal and business applications. Casual users will find it intuitive, with real-time search enhancements and natural interactions that require little to no learning curve. Developers and AI researchers can unlock advanced customization through API access and cloud-based features, though utilizing these tools effectively may require technical expertise.

The current versions, Gemini 1.5 Flash and Pro, cater to different needs, with Flash offering a cost-efficient, distilled option and Pro providing higher performance. Meanwhile, the Gemini 2.0 series, designed primarily for enterprise use, includes experimental models like Gemini 2.0 Flash with enhanced speed and multimodal live APIs, as well as the more powerful Gemini 2.0 Pro.

Basic access to Gemini is often free or available through Google Cloud’s Vertex AI. Still, advanced usage, especially when integrated into enterprise solutions, was introduced at $19.99–$25 per month per user, with pricing adjusted to reflect added features like a 1-million-token context window.

Gemini’s main advantage over other AIs is that it excels in processing text, images, audio, and video simultaneously, making it a standout in multimodal mastery. It also integrates seamlessly with Google Workspace, Gmail, and Android devices, making it a natural fit for users already in the Google ecosystem. Additionally, it offers competitive pricing for developers and enterprises needing robust capabilities, especially in extended context handling.

However, Gemini’s performance can be inconsistent, particularly with rare languages or specialized queries. Some advanced versions may be limited by safety testing, delaying wider access. Furthermore, its deep integration with Google’s ecosystem can be a barrier for users outside that environment, making adoption more challenging.

Anthropic’s Claude

Anthropic’s Claude is known for its emphasis on safety, natural conversational flow, and long-form contextual understanding. It is particularly well-suited for users who prioritize ethical AI usage and structured collaboration in their workflows.

Researchers and academics who need long-form contextual retention and minimal hallucinations, as well as writers and content creators who benefit from its structured approach and accuracy, will find Claude an essential and beneficial AI assistant. Business professionals and teams can leverage Claude’s “Projects” feature for task and document management, while educators and students will find its safety guardrails and clear responses ideal for learning support.

Because Claude is highly accessible for those seeking a structured, ethical AI with a strong contextual understanding, it is moderately suitable for creative users who may find its restrictive filters limiting and less ideal for those needing unrestricted, fast brainstorming tools or AI-generated content with minimal moderation.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet, on the other hand, is the flagship model, offering enhanced reasoning, speed, and contextual understanding for both individual and enterprise users. For businesses and teams, the Claude Team and Enterprise Plans start at approximately $25 per user per month (billed annually), providing advanced collaboration features. Individual users can access Claude Pro, a premium plan that costs around $20 per month, offering expanded capabilities and priority access. A limited free tier is also available, allowing general users to explore basic features and test its functionality.

Unlike most AIs, Claude excels in ethical AI safety, extended conversational memory, and structured project management, making it ideal for users who require reliable and well-moderated AI assistance. Its intuitive interface and organization tools enhance productivity for writers, researchers, educators, and business professionals.

However, there are instances when availability constraints during peak hours can disrupt workflow efficiency. Claude’s strict safety filters, while preventing harmful content, sometimes limit creative flexibility, making it less suitable for highly experimental or unrestricted brainstorming sessions. Additionally, enterprise costs may be high for large-scale teams with extensive AI usage.

DeepSeek AI

DeepSeek, a newcomer from China, has quickly gained attention for its cost efficiency and open-access philosophy. Unlike many established AI models, DeepSeek focuses on providing affordable AI access while maintaining strong reasoning capabilities, making it an appealing option for businesses and individual users alike. “DeepSeek R1 is one of the most amazing and impressive breakthroughs I’ve ever seen—and as open source, a profound gift to the world,” said Marc Andreessen, former software engineer and co-founder of Netscape.

Being an excellent choice for cost-conscious businesses, independent developers, and researchers who need a powerful yet affordable AI solution, DeepSeek is particularly suitable for startups, academic institutions, and enterprises that require strong reasoning and problem-solving capabilities without high operational costs. It is highly accessible for individuals due to its free web-based model, and even developers and enterprises benefit from its low-cost API. However, organizations requiring politically neutral AI models or strict privacy assurances may find it less suitable, especially in industries where data security and regulatory compliance are paramount.

The latest model, DeepSeek-R1, is designed for advanced reasoning tasks and is accessible through both an API and a chat interface. An earlier version, DeepSeek-V3, serves as the architectural foundation for the current releases, offering an extended context window of up to 128,000 tokens while being optimized for efficiency.

DeepSeek is free for individual users through its web interface, making it one of the most accessible AI models available. However, for business applications, API usage comes at a significantly lower cost than U.S. competitors, making it an attractive option for enterprises looking to reduce expenses. Reports indicate that DeepSeek’s training costs are drastically lower, with estimates suggesting it was trained for approximately $6 million, a fraction of the cost compared to competitors, whose training expenses can run into the tens or hundreds of millions.

One of DeepSeek’s biggest strengths is its cost efficiency. It allows businesses and developers to access powerful AI without the financial burden associated with models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 or Anthropic’s Claude. Its open-source approach further enhances its appeal, as it provides model weights and technical documentation under open licenses, encouraging transparency and community-driven improvements.

Additionally, its strong reasoning capabilities have been benchmarked against leading AI models, with DeepSeek-R1 rivaling OpenAI’s top-tier models in specific problem-solving tasks. As Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark wrote in his “Import AI” newsletter, “R1 is significant because it broadly matches OpenAI’s o1 model on a range of reasoning tasks and challenges the notion that Western AI companies hold a significant lead over Chinese ones.”

A notable problem with DeepSeek is that its response latency, especially during periods of high demand, makes it less ideal for real-time applications where speed is crucial. Censorship and bias are also potential concerns. DeepSeek aligns with local content regulations, meaning it may sanitize or avoid politically sensitive topics, which could limit its appeal in global markets. Additionally, some users have raised privacy concerns due to its Chinese ownership, questioning whether its data policies are as stringent as those of Western AI companies that comply with strict international privacy standards.

Microsoft’s Copilot

Microsoft’s Copilot is a productivity-focused AI assistant designed to enhance workplace efficiency through seamless integration with the Microsoft 365 suite. By embedding AI-powered automation directly into tools like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Teams, Copilot serves as an intelligent assistant that streamlines workflows, automates repetitive tasks, and enhances document generation.

Ideal for businesses, enterprise teams, and professionals who heavily rely on Microsoft 365 applications for their daily operations, Microsoft’s Copilot is particularly beneficial for corporate professionals, financial analysts, project managers, and administrative staff who need AI-powered assistance to enhance productivity and reduce time spent on routine tasks. However, organizations that prefer open-source AI models or require flexible, cross-platform compatibility may find Copilot less suitable, especially if they rely on non-Microsoft software ecosystems for their workflows.

Microsoft 365 Copilot is available across Microsoft’s core productivity applications, providing AI-powered assistance for document creation, email drafting, data analysis, and meeting summarization. The service costs approximately $30 per user per month and typically requires an annual subscription. However, pricing can vary based on region and enterprise agreements, with some organizations receiving customized pricing based on their licensing structure.

One of Copilot’s most significant advantages is its deep ecosystem integration within Microsoft 365. For businesses and professionals already using Microsoft Office, Copilot enhances workflows by embedding AI-driven suggestions and automation directly within familiar applications. Its task automation capabilities are another significant benefit, helping users generate reports, summarize meetings, draft emails, and analyze data more efficiently. Furthermore, Copilot receives continuous updates backed by Microsoft’s substantial investments in AI and cloud computing, ensuring regular improvements in performance, accuracy, and feature expansion.

In contrast, one of the significant drawbacks of Microsoft’s Copilot is its ecosystem lock-in—Copilot is tightly coupled with Microsoft 365, meaning its full potential is only realized by organizations already invested in Microsoft’s software ecosystem. Limited flexibility is another concern, as it lacks extensive third-party integrations found in more open AI platforms, making customization difficult for businesses that rely on a broader range of tools. Additionally, some users report occasional response inconsistencies, where Copilot may lose context in long sessions or provide overly generic responses, requiring manual refinement.

Meta AI

Meta’s suite of AI tools, built on its open-weight LLaMA models, is a versatile and research-friendly AI suite designed for both general use and specialized applications. Meta’s approach prioritizes open-source development, accessibility, and integration with its social media platforms, making it a unique player in the AI landscape. It is ideal for developers, researchers, and AI enthusiasts who want free, open-source models that they can customize and fine-tune. It is also well-suited for businesses and brands leveraging Meta’s social platforms, as its AI can enhance customer interactions and content creation within apps like Instagram and WhatsApp.

Meta AI is highly accessible for developers and researchers due to its open-source availability and flexibility. However, businesses and casual users may find it less intuitive compared to AI models with more refined user-facing tools. Additionally, companies needing strong content moderation and regulatory compliance may prefer more tightly controlled AI systems from competitors like Microsoft or Anthropic.

Meta AI operates on a range of LLaMA models, including LLaMA 2 and LLaMA 3, which serve as the foundation for various applications. Specialized versions, such as Code Llama, are tailored for coding tasks, offering developers AI-powered assistance in programming.

One of Meta AI’s standout features is its open-source licensing, which makes many of its tools free for research and commercial use. However, enterprise users may encounter service-level agreements (SLAs) or indirect costs, especially when integrating Meta’s AI with proprietary systems or platform partnerships.

Meta AI’s biggest advantage is its open-source and customizable nature, allowing developers to fine-tune models for specific use cases. This fosters greater innovation, flexibility, and transparency compared to closed AI systems. Additionally, Meta AI is embedded within popular social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, giving it massive consumer reach and real-time interactive capabilities. Meta also provides specialized AI models, such as Code Llama, for programming and catering to niche technical applications.

Despite its powerful underlying technology, Meta AI’s user interfaces and responsiveness can sometimes feel less polished than those of competitors like OpenAI and Microsoft. Additionally, Meta has faced controversies regarding content moderation and bias, raising concerns about AI-generated misinformation and regulatory scrutiny. Another challenge is ecosystem fragmentation; with multiple AI models and branding under Meta, navigating the differences between Meta AI, LLaMA, and other offerings can be confusing for both developers and general users.

AI’s Impact on the Future of Technology
As AI adoption grows, the energy demand for training and operating these models increases. Companies are developing more efficient AI models while managing infrastructure costs. Modern AI models, particularly those known as large language models (LLMs), are powerhouses that demand vast computational resources. Training these models involves running billions of calculations across highly specialized hardware over days, weeks, or even months.

The process is analogous to running an industrial factory non-stop—a feat that requires a tremendous amount of energy. The rise of AI assistants, automation, and multimodal capabilities will further shape industries, from customer support to content creation. “The worst thing you can do is have machines wasting power by being always on,” said James Coomer, senior vice president for products at DDN, a California-based software development firm, during the 2023 AI conference ai-PULSE.

AI competition will likely drive further advancements, leading to smarter, more accessible, and environmentally conscious AI solutions. However, challenges related to cost, data privacy, and ethical considerations will continue to shape the development of AI.

Sustainable AI and the Future
AI companies are actively addressing concerns about energy consumption and sustainability by optimizing their models to enhance efficiency while minimizing power usage. One key approach is leveraging renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, to supply data centers, which significantly reduces their carbon footprint. Additionally, advancements in hardware are being developed to support more energy-efficient AI computation, enabling systems to perform complex tasks with lower energy demands. These innovations not only help reduce environmental impact but also contribute to long-term cost savings for AI companies.

Beyond technological improvements, regulatory policies are being introduced to ensure AI growth aligns with environmental sustainability. Governments and industry leaders need to work together to establish guidelines that encourage responsible energy consumption while promoting research into eco-friendly AI solutions. However, the fear of governmental regulation often makes technology leaders hesitant to collaborate.

One voice at the forefront of global AI governance is Amandeep Singh Gill, the United Nations Secretary-General’s envoy on technology, who emphasizes the importance of collaborative governance in AI development—and sustainable development needs to be part of this cooperation and coordination.

“[W]e have to find ways to engage with those who are in the know,” he said in a September 2024 interview in Time. “Often, there’s a gap between technology developers and regulators, particularly when the private sector is in the lead. When it comes to diplomats and civil servants and leaders and ministers, there’s a further gap. How can you involve different stakeholders, the private sector in particular, in a way that influences action? You need to have a shared understanding.”

No matter the level of collaboration between the private and public sectors, companies need to aggressively explore emission-mitigation methods like carbon offset programs and energy-efficient algorithms to further mitigate their environmental impact. By integrating these strategies, the AI industry is making strides toward a more sustainable future without compromising innovation and progress.

Balancing Innovation and Responsibility
AI is advancing rapidly, with OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, DeepSeek, CoPilot, and MetaAI leading the way. While these models offer groundbreaking capabilities, they also come with costs, limitations, and sustainability concerns.

Businesses, researchers, and policymakers must prioritize responsible AI development while maintaining accessibility and efficiency. The Futurist: The AI (R)evolution panel discussion held by the Washington Post brought together industry leaders to explore the multifaceted impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on business, governance, and society. Martin Kon of Cohere explains that his role is securing AI for business with an emphasis on data privacy, which is essential for “critical infrastructure like banking, insurance, health care, government, energy, telco, etc.”

Because there’s no equivalent of Google Search for enterprises, AI, Kon says, is an invaluable tool in searching for needles in haystacks–but it’s complicated: “Every year, those haystacks get bigger, and every year, the needles get more valuable, but every enterprise’s haystacks are different. They’re data sources, and everyone cares about different needles.” He is, however, optimistic on the job front, maintaining that the new technology will create more jobs and greater value than many critics fear.

“Doctors, nurses, radiologists spend three and a half hours a day on admin. If you can get that done in 20 minutes, that’s three hours a day you’ve freed up of health care professionals. You’re not going to fire a third of them. They’re just going to have more time to treat patients, to train, to teach others, to sleep for the brain surgery tomorrow.”

May Habib, CEO of Writer, which builds AI models, is similarly optimistic, describing AI as “democratizing.” “All of these secret Einsteins in the company that didn’t have access to the tools to build can now build things that can be completely trajectory-changing for the business, and that’s the kind of vision that folks need to hear. And when folks hear that vision, they see a space and a part for themselves in it.”

Sy Choudhury, director of business development for AI Partnerships at Meta, sees a vital role for AI on the public sector side. “[I]t can be everything very mundane from logistics all the way to cybersecurity, all the way to your billing and making sure that you can talk to your state school when you’re applying for federal student–or student loans, that kind of thing.”

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), who led the House AI Task Force in 2024, acknowledges the need for “an institute to set standards for AI and to create testing and evaluation methodologies for AI” but emphasizes that “those standards should be non-compulsory…” And while agreeing that AI is “a very powerful tool,” he says that it’s still “just a tool,” adding that “if you concentrate on outcomes, you don’t have to worry as much about the tools…”

But some of those outcomes, he admits, can be adverse. “[O]ne example that I use a lot is the potential malicious use of AI for cyber fraud and cyber theft,” he says. “[I]n the pantheon of malicious uses of AI, that’s one of the ones that we at the task force worried the most about because we say bad actors are going to bad, and they’re going to bad more productively with AI than without AI because it’s such a powerful tool for enhancing productivity.”

Consumers can also do their part by managing AI usage wisely—turning off unused applications, optimizing workflows, and advocating for sustainable AI practices. AI’s future depends on balancing innovation with responsibility. The challenge is not just about creating smarter AI but also ensuring that its growth benefits society while minimizing its environmental impact.

By Sharon Kumar

Author Bio: Sharon Kumar is a technology editor at The Observatory, where he provides analysis and critical perspectives on the rapidly evolving tech landscape. As a seasoned MAANG tech professional with over a decade of experience in program management, strategic planning, and technology-driven business solutions, including AI and system performance optimization, Kumar has a deep understanding of emerging trends, digital infrastructure, and software development.

Credit Line: This article was produced by The Observatory, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

 

04-05-2025 ~ The radical return to protectionism is not only possible but necessary for an empire facing an undeniable decline. It has been denounced by critical analysts but certified by leading intellectuals of the US establishment, such as Zbigniew Brzeziński in a 2012 text and, subsequently, by several documents of the Rand Corporation. Decline, or dissolution, if you prefer, came hand in hand with critical domestic factors: the slow growth of the economy, the loss of competitiveness in global markets, and the gigantic indebtedness of the federal government. If in 1980 the US federal government’s debt-to-GDP ratio was 34.54%, today it has reached an astronomical level of 122.55%. To this must be added the intractable balance of the trade deficit, which continues to grow and in 2024 amounted to 131.4 billion dollars, representing roughly 3.5% of the GDP. This is the case because the US consumes more than it produces.

To this constellation of domestic factors of imperial weakening should be added the deterioration of democratic legitimacy. The latter was highlighted by the 6 January 2021 assault on the Capitol and by the more recent widespread pardons granted by Trump in favor of some 1,500 attackers who had been convicted by the US judiciary. Instead of bipartisan consensus, today, there is a huge rift undermining the political system, of which Trumpism is but one expression.

To this already challenging picture must be added the epochal changes in the external environment of the United States, transformations that have irreversibly modified the morphology of the international system and its geopolitical imperatives. The phenomenal economic growth of China and the significant advances of other countries of the Global South, such as India and several Asian nations, became objective barriers to the pretensions of Washington. Over many decades, the US has been accustomed to imposing its conditions worldwide without stumbling against too many obstacles. However much Trump may regret it, that ‘golden era’ is gone forever; it is already part of the past because of the economic strengthening and technological advances of the countries of the Global South. This has created a planetary landscape where yesterday’s bravados no longer have the same effect. This is even less the case with commercial wars, where the aggressor ends up being the victim of its own decisions.

As if the above were not enough, the ‘world chessboard’ is further complicated by the unexpected ‘return’ of Russia as a global power contender. This took by surprise the ideologized experts of the empire, fervent believers in the exceptionalism of the United States as ‘the indispensable nation’. Because of their ideological blinders, they were led to believe that after the implosion of the Soviet Union, Russia had been condemned per secula seculorum to be a passive bystander of world affairs, without any capacity to exercise the slightest protagonist role. Add to this picture the greater military response capacity of these countries – especially Russia, as proved in the Ukrainian war – and their achievements in the diplomatic field and in the formation of broad alliances – the BRICS, for example. Then, we will understand the reasons why the world geopolitical balance has tipped in a direction contrary to US interests. Multipolarism has arrived and is here to stay.

It should come as no surprise that in the face of these threatening changes (that had been manifest since the beginning of the frustrated ‘new American century’), some scholars, pundits, and government advisors have made emphatic calls for US leadership to exercise naked power, leaving aside all conventionalities or adherence to international legality. One of them, Robert Kagan, provided this advice in a long and highly influential article published the year after the 9/11 attacks. Unlike Europe, he said, US leadership must be aware that the country exists in ‘an anarchic, Hobbesian world in which international laws and norms are insecure and uncertain. In such a scenario, true security, defense and promotion of a liberal order depend on the possession and use of military force’.

For Kagan, the world’s need for a ‘global gendarme’ – an updated version of Hobbes’s Leviathan – was indisputable, and Washington was the only one with the will and capacity to fulfill that critical role. Hence, the doctrine of ‘Preventive War’ was proclaimed by George W. Bush shortly after 9/11. This established that countries or governments that, according to White House standards, are outside the law must be neutralized or destroyed. Naturally, these were the countries that do not accept the lying ‘rules-based world order’ designed to favor the United States and its vassals.

Kagan tops off his proposal by appealing to the vicious reasoning of a senior British diplomat, Robert Cooper. The latter argued that in dealing with the world outside Europe (or the ‘Anglosphere’, or the receding West), ‘We need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era – force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law, but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle’. The jungle is obviously all of the rest of the planet outside the North Atlantic and most especially the outlying regions of the empire. Exactly twenty years later, Josep Borrell, High Representative for Foreign Policy of the supremely immoral European Union, would be inspired by Cooper’s writing when he compared with unequalled arrogance the ‘European garden’ with the rest of the world. He characterised the rest of the world as a ‘jungle’ which must be treated with the brutal methods of the jungle.

Yet, a few years before the publication of Kagan’s and Cooper’s texts, cunning exponents of American conservatism such as Samuel P. Huntington warned about the limits of the United States as ‘lone sheriff’ and, in general, about the sustainability of the unipolarism that some thought would last throughout the 21st century. According to this author, the turbulence of the international landscape after the collapse of the Soviet Union forced Washington, now the lonely superpower, to exercise international power ruthlessly, given that in a Hobbesian world, only the strongest prevails. However, he warned that with the passage of time, this behavior was likely to precipitate the formation of a very broad anti-US coalition that would include not only Russia and China but also many other countries – what we now call the Global South. Incidentally, this was the nightmare that disturbed Brzezinski’s sleep in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard.

Moreover, as the gendarme of world capitalism, Washington is obliged, according to Huntington, to do some nasty things such as to ‘pressure other countries to adopt American values and practices; to prevent third countries from acquiring military capabilities that could counter American military superiority;’ or to impose the outrageous and illegal extraterritoriality of all US laws; or to promote US business interests under the ‘slogans of free trade and open markets; shape World Bank and International Monetary Fund policies to serve those same corporate interests’; and also to categorize certain countries as ‘state sponsors of terrorism’ (as Trump did with Cuba in one of his first executive orders) because they refuse to bow to US wishes. As a result, he warned, it would only be a matter of time before, in reaction to these policies, a broad front opposed to the United States would be formed and the empire would be increasingly challenged by new and very powerful international actors. In the military field, the ‘lone sheriff’ was beaten in Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; it was unable to overcome Cuba’s heroic resistance to sixty-five years of a criminal blockade, or to overthrow the government of Venezuela after more than ten years of all kind of aggressions. To make matters worse, this guardian of world capitalism is not only weaker but also has to deal with a much more complicated and intractable international scene than a quarter of a century ago.

In his desperation, Trump is trying to stop the clock and dress up as a sheriff, appealing to brute force and making bullying his main diplomatic argument (‘peace by force’, as Marco Rubio said) to revive the ‘golden age’ of imperialism: gunboat diplomacy, and, in vain, an attempt to resurrect a ‘rules-based world order’ that died a few years ago. Trump is only the gravedigger, not the executioner, of that biased world order. He withdrew from the Paris Climate Change Accords and the World Health Organization, cut the funding to the World Trade Organization created under Washington’s leadership, and threatened to abandon the United Nations and its multiple global bodies (UNESCO would be a special target of this policy shift). He also definitively scrapped a large number of international treaties that, according to his mediocre staff of advisors, prevent the United States from ‘becoming great again’. In his restoration crusade, Trump wields the weapon of the trade war by appealing to customs tariffs, whose boomerang effect has been repeatedly pointed out by economists of all walks of life.

In its belated imperial delirium, the US threatens to impose its will over any opponent, from those who say that Greenland is not for sale, or Canada will not be the 51st state of the Union, or the Panama Canal cannot be taken back by force because it is controlled by the Chinese (which is a tremendous lie). They include those who reject changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, who won’t consider the drug cartels as ‘terrorist organizations’, which according to US laws would empower him to fight them inside the Mexican territory, and, of course, those who oppose redoubling the aggressions against Cuba and Venezuela.

Trump had promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office, but two months later, his words vanished into thin air because Vladimir Putin is not willing to throw in the trash his military victory against NATO in Ukraine in exchange for nothing. And despite Trump’s supposedly pacifist pretensions, reduced to the case of Ukraine, he continues with the policy of his predecessors, both Republicans and Democrats, of financing, arming, and approving the genocide that the Israeli terrorist regime is perpetrating in Gaza and now in the West Bank. So far, Trump and his small band of oligarchs who hijacked democracy in the United States have limited its restorative pretensions to the level of gestures and words or to costless initiatives such as abandoning the World Health Organization. But on the Mars Field of international relations, where multiple and very powerful actors and interests collide, so far little or nothing has been achieved. To make matters worse, Trump has a domestic front where growing numbers of the US population already disapprove of his job at the White House – 50% according to the Economist survey of 27 March.

Nevertheless, in Latin America and the Caribbean, we must be on guard because, as Fidel and Che repeatedly warned, when things do not go well for the United States in other parts of the world, Washington retreats to its strategic rearguard – precisely Latin America and the Caribbean. It would not hesitate to unleash a political, media, intelligence, and even military offensive to erect ‘friendly governments’ in the region – if necessary, ferocious dictatorships – to scare off rival powers such as China, Russia, India, Iran, and other countries of the Global South. It happened in the past, and it could happen again today.

By Atilio A. Borón

Author Bio: This article was produced by Globetrotter. Atilio A. Borón is an Argentine Marxist and sociologist. He was the Secretary General of the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO). He won UNESCO’s International José Martí Prize in 2009 and the Premio Libertador al Pensamiento Crítico in 2013.

Source: Globetrotter

04-04-2025 ~ Reintroducing European bison to Britain, despite their absence from its history, could help restore ecological balance by fostering biodiversity and reversing some of the damage caused by industrial farming practices.

Although there is no evidence that the European bison (Bison bonasus), known as wisent, ever roamed the islands of the United Kingdom, its genetic heritage suggests that it is attuned to the environment. The European bison is a hybrid that descends from the steppe bison (Bison priscus) and the aurochs (Bos primigenius), both extinct species that were once native to the UK.

Britain once hosted a broad range of great beasts. We slaughtered the bears, elk, and lynx many centuries ago. The wolves lasted the longest. Now, only the names of their crags, hills, meres, or the ubiquitous deep pits where we caught and bound them for torture recall their former existence. As with the aquamarine blue moor frogs, black storks, and night herons, humans hastened the end of them all.

Today, one in seven of England’s surviving species is also threatened with extinction. In large part, much of the landscape that appears to be so green is dead. Chemicals and pesticides in the soil have killed smaller species. The disappearance of these minute species has caused a chain reaction within the natural order, starving, poisoning, or otherwise compromising the food chain.

Gone is the food for some creatures or the cover for others. The living space that remains is highly restricted and commonly of poor quality. The absence of one pivotal creature can mean the loss of natural function upon which others depend. Even when our understanding of this is crystal clear, we respond in a reluctant, slow-motion fashion.

The Downside of Conservation
Conservation comes in many forms, and my beginning was not with the wild but with the tame. At a time when you can drive through the landscape and see so many of the old black or spotted sheep, white long-horned cattle, or brick-red pigs more or less everywhere, it’s hard to remember that these relics were nearly extinct by the 1970s. Farming at that time was already set to conquer its Everests of “improvement.”

Rivers of government cash flowed into subsidies for everything imaginable, from the import of faster-growing continental livestock to new and super-productive crops, to fertilizers that flowed from white plastic sacks rather than freely from cows’ backsides, to pesticides that killed their target species, and much more besides.

Guilds of focused advisors in drab brown overalls and tiny vans met farmers free of charge to explain how to employ this largesse. Colleges produced legions of indoctrinated students who marched out in ranks to feed the world. Research stations, laboratories, and experimental farms, all centrally funded, were established throughout the land.

Meadows full of dancing wildflowers or woodlands where spotted flycatchers dipped and weaved to catch beakfuls of insects twirling in sunlit strobes did not fit the narrative of those times. Most were plowed under or ripped free from the soil that had held them for centuries, awaiting incineration on well-prepared pyres.

Birds of all sorts died in myriads when cornfields, old pastures, and orchards were sprayed with new toxins. Frogs returned to breed in the spring to discover their ancestral ponds had vanished. Photographers produced heartbreaking black-and-white images of them sitting in massed aggregations on their drying spawn.

Breeds of livestock with their roots buried deep in Britain’s culture were discarded as well. It did not matter that they had adapted to frugal living to produce something—a little meat, milk, horn, or dung to fertilize small fields—for folk who had nothing and could offer them less.

Who cared if they had been brought by the Norse, the Romans, or the Celts? They were out of time. Small or slow-growing and difficult to handle with independent spirits, the sooner they were all gone, the better. Their qualities of disease resistance, fine wool, or superlative meat meant nothing. Any adaptation to specific environments was meaningless in a time when whole landscapes could be rearranged.

Farmers Are Not the Problem
To be clear, farmers are not the problem. The problem is the great false idol of the industrial machine that so many unblinkingly worship. In general, farmers are a well-humored bunch. The old ones with good stories are always the best, and I have spent many hours sitting in their cozy kitchens listening to their tales as small dogs snoozed next to the iron cooker and busy wives bustled to serve cakes.

There was slight Henry Cowan, who regretted until the day he died that he had allowed a passing dealer to buy his last two horses, kept long after the others had gone, for the glue works. Tall Francis Watson, a big bear of a man who, at the age of 17, had guarded the palace of the Nizams in Hyderabad and whose great joy it was to linger for no particular purchase in our village shop to converse with its Pakistani proprietors in Urdu. And Miss Bartholomew, whose old cats pissed on her house chairs and whose ancient pet pigs were turned by her stockman daily to ease their bed sores when they could no longer stand.

All of them were once characters of great color who have now passed in time. Their world was simpler, of clear rights and dark wrongs. The reapers who harvested in their golden youths are not of the sort that scythe the earth today. The prospect that the land that they had cleared of rocks, drained and deforested, and then reforested, enriched, and impoverished in the swiftest succession would ever be used again for any purpose other than farming would not have seemed plausible to them at all. The notion that some of England’s oldest beasts could be restored to accelerate nature’s gain would have seemed absurd.

The Benefits of Bison
So why bother bringing bison back to Britain when we could be content to sit back in our slippers and reintegrate beavers into the countryside, which, in theory at least, is as easy as falling off a stationary bus? The answer, in large part, is process. If, as it seems tantalizingly tangible, we are going to move from an era of unequivocal public subsidy for farming 70 percent of the British landmass (23 million acres) to a time when public money will be employed more evenly to repair nature, then at least a few of the large creatures we hunted to extinction may be restored in a limited fashion to assist this endeavor.

Bison, for example, are not cattle. They are high forest browsers. If you reinstall them in dark, dull plantation woodlands with little biodiversity value, they will smash and debark big trees, wallow in sand soils, gouge out damp clays, provide pesticide-free blood and dung in abundance for insects, and crunch down woody scrub at random in a jagged and irregular manner.

They rip the bark from the stems of broad-leafed trees in a frozen winter by inserting the teeth of their lower palate under the surface of the tree, gripping it tightly with their upper jaw, and tugging sharply downward in order to “whip crack” the length of the stem before it tumbles away like a falling curtain to be consumed.

A single bison can eat 32 kilos of bark in a day. Multiply this by a stamping herd, hoarfrosted with steaming nostrils, and the impact of bison on woodland structure becomes obvious. Whole groves of succulent, young trees are retarded or misshapen. Their wounds leach resin or sap, which snails cluster into to exploit.

Some bare areas may scab over and scar, while others decay completely for woodpeckers to peck full of voids. Bats, martens, and birds use these cavities as nesting sites, while specialists such as willow tits make their own abodes in desiccated pockets rotted down by mycelia of many sorts. Nature loves randomness, and there is more in the simplest of forms.

The fur from a bison’s woolly coat will be gathered by birds from the grasping thorns of bramble or rose or from their backs directly when it peels in scrofulous mats in the springtime. This warm, snuggly material, which is ideal for their nests, will be filched from them by small mammals and taken underground. The repetitive wallowing of bison in dry sandbanks scours these vegetation-free features in random patches.

In their well-trampled base lie easily excavatable egg-laying areas for sand lizards, while mining insects pit any exposed standing banks with their tunnels. Over time, the fragrant possibility exists that the European bee-eater, a child-painted wonder of yellows, blues, browns, and greens, will one day grace them as sites for their nest tunnels.

Bison will, in short, do some things that cattle are incapable of doing and others that cattle don’t do very well. This, of course, is hardly surprising, given that ten thousand years of preparation for domestication has profoundly altered the shape, biology, and behavior of cattle, while bison have retained their wild being intact.

By Derek Gow

Author Bio: Derek Gow is a farmer, nature conservationist, and author of Bringing Back the Beaver (Chelsea Green, 2022) and Birds, Beasts and Bedlam (Chelsea Green, 2022). Born in Dundee, Scotland, he left school when he was 17 and worked in agriculture for five years. Inspired by the writing of Gerald Durrell, Dow jumped at the chance to manage a European wildlife park in central Scotland in the late 1990s before developing two nature centers in England. He now lives with his children, Maysie and Kyle, on a 300-acre farm on the Devon/Cornwall border, which he is rewilding. Gow has played a significant role in the reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver, the water vole, and the white stork in England. He is currently working on a reintroduction project for the wildcat.

Credit Line: This excerpt is adapted from Derek Gow’s book Birds, Beasts and Bedlam: Turning My Farm Into a Lost Ark for Species (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022). It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) by permission of Chelsea Green Publishing and produced for the web by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.