# data[].attributes.body
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/should-mandatory-bicycle-helmet-laws-be-scrapped-in-western-australia/news-story/9db8d1ec018f3683caf66c2ef8f4abdf

# data[].attributes.headline
(Abdullah Alshammari) AI: How 'freaked out' should we be?

# data[].attributes.subject
(Abdullah Alshammari) AI: How 'freaked out' should we be?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Artificial intelligence has the awesome power to change the way we live our lives, in both good and dangerous ways. Experts have little confidence that those in power are prepared for what's coming.

Back in 2019, a research group called OpenAI created a software program that could generate paragraphs of coherent text and perform rudimentary reading comprehension and analysis without specific instruction.

OpenAI initially decided not to make its creation, called GPT-2, fully available to the public out of fear that people with malicious intent could use it to generate massive amounts disinformation and propaganda. In a press release announcing its decision, the group called the program "too dangerous".

Fast forward three years, and artificial intelligence capabilities have increased exponentially.

In contrast to that last limited distribution, the next offering, GPT-3, was made readily available in November. The Chatbot-GPT interface derived from that programming was the service that launched a thousand news articles and social media posts, as reporters and experts tested its capabilities - often with eye-popping results.

Chatbot-GPT scripted stand-up routines in the style of the late comedian George Carlin about the Silicon Valley Bank failure. It opined on Christian theology. It wrote poetry. It explained quantum theory physics to a child as though it were rapper Snoop Dogg. Other AI models, like Dall-E, generated visuals so compelling they have sparked controversy over their inclusion on art websites.

Machines, at least to the naked eye, have achieved creativity.

On Tuesday, OpenAI debuted the latest iteration of its program, GPT-4, which it says has robust limits on abusive uses. Early clients include Microsoft, Merrill Lynch and the government of Iceland. And at the South by Southwest Interactive conference in Austin, Texas, this week - a global gathering of tech policymakers, investors and executives - the hottest topic of conversation was the potential, and power, of artificial intelligence programs.

Arati Prabhakar, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, says she is excited about the possibilities of AI, but she also had a warning.

"What we are all seeing is the emergence of this extremely powerful technology. This is an inflection point," she told a conference panel audience. "All of history shows that these kinds of powerful new technologies can and will be used for good and for ill."

Her co-panelist, Austin Carson, was a bit more blunt.

"If in six months you are not completely freaked the (expletive) out, then I will buy you dinner," the founder of SeedAI, an artificial intelligence policy advisory group, told the audience.

"Freaked out" is one way of putting it. Amy Webb, head of the Future Today Institute and a New York University business professor, tried to quantify the potential outcomes in her SXSW presentation. She said artificial intelligence could go in one of two directions over the next 10 years.

In an optimistic scenario, AI development is focused on the common good, with transparency in AI system design and an ability for individuals to opt-in to whether their publicly available information on the internet is included in the AI's knowledge base. The technology serves as a tool that makes life easier and more seamless, as AI features on consumer products can anticipate user needs and help accomplish virtually any task.

Ms Webb's catastrophic scenario involves less data privacy, more centralisation of power in a handful of companies and AI that anticipates user needs - and gets them wrong or, at least, stifles choices.

She gives the optimistic scenario only a 20% chance.

Which direction the technology goes, Ms Webb told the BBC, ultimately depends in large part on the responsibility with which companies develop it. Do they do so transparently, revealing and policing the sources from which the chatbots - which scientists call Large Language Models - draw their information?

The other factor, she said, is whether government - federal regulators and Congress - can move quickly to establish legal guardrails to guide the technological developments and prevent their misuse.

In this regard, government's experience with social media companies - Facebook, Twitter, Google and the like - is illustrative. And the experience is not encouraging.

"What I heard in a lot of conversations was concern that there aren't any guardrails," Melanie Subin, managing director of the Future Today Institute, says of her time at South by Southwest. "There is a sense that something needs to be done. And I think that social media as a cautionary tale is what's in people's minds when they see how quickly generative AI is developing."

Federal oversight of social media companies is largely based on the Communications Decency Act, which Congress passed in 1996, and a short but powerful provision contained in Section 230 of the law. That language protected internet companies from being held liable for user-generated content on their websites. It's credited for creating a legal environment which social media companies could thrive. But more recently, it's also being blamed for allowing these internet companies to gain too much power and influence.

Politicians on the right complain that it has allowed the Googles and Facebooks of the world to censure or diminish the visibility of conservative opinions. Those on the left accuse the companies of not doing enough to prevent the spread of hate speech and violent threats.

"We have an opportunity and responsibility to recognise that hateful rhetoric leads to hateful actions," said Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's secretary of state. In December 2020, her home was targeted for protest by armed Donald Trump supporters, organised on Facebook, who were challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election.

She has backed deceptive practices legislation in Michigan that would hold social media companies responsible for knowingly spreading harmful information. There have been similar proposals at both the federal level and in other states, along with legislation to require social media sites to provide more protection for underage users, be more open about their content moderation policies and take more active steps to reduce online harassment.

Opinion is mixed, however, over the chances of success for such reform. Big tech companies have entire teams of lobbyists in Washington DC and state capitals as well as deep coffers with which to influence politicians through campaign donations.

"Despite copious evidence of problems at Facebook and other social media sites, it's been 25 years," says Kara Swisher, a tech journalist. "We've been waiting for any legislation from Congress to protect consumers, and they've abrogated their responsibility."

The danger, Swisher says, is that many of the companies that have been major players in social media - Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft - are now leaders in artificial intelligence. And if Congress has been unable to successfully regulate social media, it will be a challenge for them to move quickly to address concerns about what Ms Swisher calls the "arms race" of artificial intelligence.

The comparisons between artificial intelligence regulation and social media aren't just academic, either. New AI technology could take the already troubled waters of websites like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and turn them into a boiling sea of disinformation, as it becomes increasingly difficult to separate posts by real humans from fake - but entirely believable - AI-generated accounts.

Even if government succeeds in enacting new social media regulations, they may be pointless in the face of a flood of pernicious AI-generated content.

Among the countless panels at South by Southwest, there was one titled "How Congress is building AI policy from the ground". After roughly 15 minutes of waiting, the audience was told that the panel had been cancelled because the participants had gone to the wrong venue. It turns out there had been a miscommunication between South by Southwest and the panel's organisers.

For those at the conference hoping for signs of competence from humans in government, it was not an encouraging development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Artificial intelligence will radically change our lives, for better and worse. Experts are worried.

# data[].attributes.headline
(Sae Kawashima) Water-cooler chat or work-life balance? What matters to young workers

# data[].attributes.subject
(Sae Kawashima) Water-cooler chat or work-life balance? What matters to young workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Save

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Got it

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Before starting at Brisbane Times, I worked from home for nearly three years for an online publication.

For years, my sickeningly wholesome pre-work routine was to wake early, go for a walk, get a coffee, swim in the ocean and be at my desk ready to work by 8.30am.

Work from home and hybrid work have become increasingly attractive to younger generations entering the workforce. But is there more to consider? Credit: Courtney Kruk

Remote work meant I could live where I wanted, help my sister with her newborn baby, work interstate and overseas and take a more flexible approach to each day.

It had a huge effect on my mental health and productivity.

In theory, it's a great set-up for writers who don't necessarily feel creative between the hours of 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. And for the most part, it worked. In my mind, the social nature of an office would have been distracting.

Speaking recently to a friend about remote work, she described the impact work from home had on her dad during COVID.

"He started crying and said, 'This is the first time in my 35-year career that I haven't had to drive three hours every day for work. I have all this time to do all these things, go to the gym, spend time with my family. I didn't know that life could be like this'."

But younger generations know that their working lives can be "like this", and they're increasingly valuing jobs that allow for a better work-life balance.

Research from Microsoft published in 2022 found 53 per cent of employees were more likely to prioritise health and wellbeing over work, with 47 per cent of respondents saying they were more likely to put family and personal life ahead of their job than before the pandemic.

The same study found 58 per cent of Gen Z workers were considering a shift to hybrid work and 56 per cent were considering a shift to remote work.

For all the pros of flexible work arrangements, one of the cons is the lack of spontaneous interactions afforded to people who aren't co-located with their colleagues. Credit: Louie Douvis

When you put the options side by side - commuting to a 9-5 office job versus the flexibility and relative autonomy of hybrid and WFH - it's easy to see what is more attractive. But Dr Caroline Knight, senior lecturer in management at the University of Queensland, warns there are other factors to consider.

"If you're a new graduate, for example, it can be very difficult to build networks with people if you're not in the office more often," Knight said.

"If you're working from home a couple of days a week, it can take longer to develop and maintain trusting relationships with colleagues."

Knight has found that hybrid workers, particularly young recruits who don't have partners or who live with family, are susceptible to loneliness and isolation, and might struggle to connect with colleagues.

"Obviously you can connect with colleagues online if you're good at that ... but, ultimately, we're finding that it is the in-person relationships that really are the most meaningful, especially if you're starting out."

Employees co-located in physical workplaces are set up for "richer communication": impromptu chats across the desk, after-work drinks or a passing conversation in the hallway - what is otherwise known as "water-cooler chat".

At my previous job, my boss tried to imitate that water-cooler chat with a weekly virtual coffee catch-up. For a team of mostly introverts who had never met in person, it could be painfully awkward. But the times we did get together in-person, the dynamic was vastly different.

That's the takeaway. Virtual connections don't always give a full sense of who someone is - their mannerisms, body language and idiosyncrasies. These are helpful to understand about the people you work with. Otherwise, it's a bit like online dating: you can only go so far with someone until you meet.

Having experienced remote, hybrid and full-time office work, I can see benefits to all.

Productivity isn't always necessitated by where you're working but how you work as an individual. Physical proximity makes it easier to build connections with colleagues (who, let's face it, you spend a lot of your life interacting with) and is useful for face-to-face feedback. We don't have a water cooler, but that off-the-cuff chat in the kitchen or across the desk is a welcome distraction.

But it might also have a contrasting effect on neurodivergent workers or individuals managing mental and physical health conditions, parents with young children and workers with long, expensive commutes.

While some workplaces push for a permanent return to the office, others see the benefits of hybrid work in enhancing employee satisfaction - even if all it means is just having the option available.

"A lot of organisations have become interested in work design because it is one way to protect people against psychosocial ill health ... burnout, stress, anxiety - all those things are already high, particularly since COVID," Knight said.

"There is a way that people can work better when they have the autonomy to choose ... and find out what works for them or what doesn't."

Which might be the best parting advice for younger workers still figuring out what works best for them.

Courtney Kruk is City Reporter at Brisbane Times, writing about the city and its people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water-cooler chat or work-life balance? What matters to young workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Younger generations entering the workforce increasingly want flexible work arrangements. But they might not know what they're missing.

# data[].attributes.headline
( Vu Ngoc Bao Tran ) The legal driving age should not be raised to 18

# data[].attributes.subject
( Vu Ngoc Bao Tran ) The legal driving age should not be raised to 18

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Sports Journalism and New Media, The 360

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NELSONVILLE - When I participated in formal debates during my freshman year of high school, one of the "current issues" my class and I discussed was whether or not the legal driving age should be raised. While no legislation has been passed regarding that, there have been bills that moved forward but never came to fruition. Articles from safewise.com and drive-safely.net list the pros and cons of raising the age, and I think the cons far outweigh the pros.

Whether or not a teenager is responsible enough to hold a driver's license should be determined by parents and whoever judges the teen's driving test rather than age. In some ways, age does determine one's level of maturity. A person who is 18 could certainly have better judgment than someone who is 16. However, there are immature 18 year olds and mature 16 year olds. Maturity is, in most cases, determined by the way the teen was raised.

Teens may lose many life opportunities if they can't start to drive at 16. If they choose to take a College Credit Plus class, they may not have transportation to get there. If they work a job to try and save for college, they may not have transportation. Opportunities like those that could help to further their career may not be possible without their own form of transportation.

The only way teens can improve their driving abilities is to have more experience on the road. If, when they turn 18, they decide to commute to college, they'll probably have to drive every day. If teens haven't driven alone until it's time for college, they won't be adequately prepared to take that step into adulthood. Having two years of solo driving practice taken away would not be beneficial to anyone's road or personal safety.

While I couldn't find any articles where people definitively agreed that the driving age should be increased, there are likely those that do. They might use a point from an article written by the SafeWise Team for example, saying that by raising it, car crash rates for teens 16-18 will go down significantly. However, this point is not valid. According to the National Safety Council, individuals 16-22 years old had roughly the same fatal crash rate, with a decrease starting around 24 years of age. If the legal age to drive is raised, it would take even longer for that decrease to appear.

While it is true that young adults do have the most crashes out of any age group, I don't think it's age that determines whether or not someone is a good driver. The more experience, the better your driving will be.

By trying to make the roads safer, those who support raising the age would actually be making the roads more dangerous. As stated before, there isn't a law or bill being passed currently that would change the driving age. If the government were to pass an article attempting to raise the driving age, I encourage readers to join me in doing what they can within their rights to prevent it from happening.

Luke Duncan is a student journalist with Tri-County Career Center and High School's Sports Journalism and New Media program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: The legal driving age should not be raised to 18

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NELSONVILLE - When I participated in formal debates during my freshman year of high school, one of the "current issues" my class and I discussed was whether or not the

# data[].attributes.headline
(Rio Hotta) Japanese people could all be called Sato by 2531, study warns. But they'd need to get married first

# data[].attributes.subject
(Rio Hotta) Japanese people could all be called Sato by 2531, study warns. But they'd need to get married first

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Japanese people could all be called Sato by 2531, study warns. But they’d need to get married first | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone in Japan could one day have the same surname unless its restrictive marriage laws change, according to a new study. But the country’s dwindling marriage rate could buck that trend and a rapidly declining population might render it moot entirely.

# data[].attributes.headline
（Moemi Hashimoto) Fears as more shoppers use credit cards to buy now, pay later

# data[].attributes.subject
（Moemi Hashimoto) Fears as more shoppers use credit cards to buy now, pay later

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Save

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Got it

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Many people are using credit cards to pay off their buy now, pay later (BNPL) debt, stoking fears of a cascading "debt trap" as cost of living pressures continue to bite.

Of those who have a BNPL account, about half told a survey of almost 1300 people conducted on behalf of rate comparison site Mozo that they have accounts with more than one BNPL provider, such as Afterpay or Zip.

More consumers are at risk of getting caught in cascading debt Credit: Istock

More than two-thirds of those users who also have a credit card told the survey that they have used their credit card to pay off their BNPL debt. BNPL users with a credit card say they have an outstanding debt of $1059, on average, compared to an outstanding BNPL debt of $725 for those without a credit card.

BNPL platforms allow purchases to be made immediately, with the money repaid to the provider, in most cases, in four equal instalments. Most earn their revenue from fees paid to providers by merchants and from the fees paid by purchasers who miss a repayment.

Rachel Wastell, spokeswoman for Mozo, says it is dangerous to pay off BNPL debt with a credit card, as you risk incurring interest on the credit card debt if the card debt is not paid off by the due date.

"That means what could have been an interest-free BNPL purchase can end up costing a lot in credit card interest, especially as half of the credit cards on our database charge an interest rate of 19 per cent a year or higher," Wastell says.

'If you have multiple debts, using one to pay off the other can be dangerous, especially if you end up taking on more debt.'
Rachel Wastell from comparison site Mozo

When those surveyed were asked how much debt, other than mortgage debt, they accrued during 2023, BNPL users who had never used their credit card to pay off their BNPL debt had taken on just over $6000 of debt.

That jumped to almost $9400 for those who said they used their credit card to pay off BNPL debt.

Wastell says the risk of getting caught in "cascading" debt has increased with the advent of pay advance, or wage advance apps. These are where you can access your pay ahead of time, with the advance repaid, along with a flat fee or a percentage fee, when you are paid by your employer.

"If you have multiple debts, using one to pay off the other can be dangerous, especially if you end up taking on more debt by applying for pay advances just to cover what you owe," Wastell says.

A separate survey by Finder reveals that 45 per cent of respondents say they have savings of $1000 or less. "Even something as trivial as a flat tyre would be too much for many households right now," says Graham Cooke, head of consumer research at Finder.

"Those lower levels of savings means people are much more likely to have to turn to credit cards, loans and buy-now-pay-later products to get by. While these products can be great if used properly, they can quickly get out of hand if relied on for everyday expenses," Cooke says.

Credit bureau illion expects credit card and home loan delinquencies to continue to rise in coming months.

There was a large increase in the number of credit card applications a year ago and many of those with new credit cards are falling behind on repayments, the credit bureau says.

Advice given in this article is general in nature and not intended to influence readers' decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.
Expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fears as more shoppers use credit cards to buy now, pay later

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people are using credit cards to pay off their buy now, pay later (BNPL) debt, stoking fears of a cascading "debt trap".

# data[].attributes.headline
(Marya alaas alhilali) Does Humanity Have to Eat Meat?

# data[].attributes.subject
(Marya alaas alhilali) Does Humanity Have to Eat Meat?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humans have been around for about 2.5 million years. For at least 2.4 million years, people have been eating animals. This fact is evidenced by cut traces on fossil animal bones, surviving stone tools and analyses of our ancestors' teeth. While Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis probably only ate a lizard here and there or the meaty remains left behind by other predators, Homo erectus was a hunter. Today, by some counts, the average American eats around 7,000 animals in a lifetime -including 4,500 fish, 2,400 chickens, 80 turkeys, 30 sheep, 27 pigs and 11 cows. This number not only sounds absurdly high; it raises a question: Is this really necessary?

According to one well-known theory meat consumption made us human. As early as the mid-1950s, paleoanthropologist Raymond Dart coined the idea that our early ancestors hunted animals to survive on the barren African savannah. Finally, in the 1990s, Leslie Aiello and Peter Wheeler posed the expensive-tissue hypothesis, according to which other tissues had to regress as the human brain evolved. They wanted to answer the question of where early hominins got the energy for their ever-growing organ of thought. While the brain volume of Homo rudolfensis was still about 750 cubic centimeters, Homo erectus already had up to 1,250 cubic centimeters. Today, Homo sapiens even has a brain volume of 1,100 to 1,800 cubic centimeters.

The human brain is an enormously expensive organ. Although it accounts for only a few percent of total body mass, it consumes a good fifth of total energy. Compared to roots, leaves and many other plant parts, meat (especially offal such as liver, heart or tongue) has a fairly high nutrient density with many proteins and, above all, fats. If it is also chopped up, it saves a lot of chewing, which means that the energy-rich food can be ingested with little energy consumption. Any surplus can then go to the development and operation of the brain-or so the argument goes.

Many people today justify their excessive meat consumption to themselves and others with these arguments. Modern man is a born meat eater, they reason, as a glance at human history shows. What's more, the mastery of fire, the development of language, the origin of the division of labor, the beginning of social hierarchies and even the emergence of culture could be related to hunting and eating meat. Accordingly, the consumption of meat is a natural need of humankind whereas vegetarianism is unnatural and possibly even harmful to health. But experts from such diverse fields as paleoanthropology and nutrition are questioning these ideas.

[Read more about social roles and early human hunting]

We Are Constantly Evolving

Human evolution is not locked but instead constantly developing. What was true for our ancestors is not necessarily still true today. For example, food's availability, composition and preparation have changed enormously since early humans acquired a taste for meat. We no longer have to spend half a day stalking an animal. Modern breeding methods have significantly increased the nutrient content in plant foods. And over time, we have learned to cook our food so that it is easier to digest and nutrients are more accessible.

Today, meat is no longer a luxury product. On the contrary, a cutlet is sometimes cheaper than a sack of potatoes. However, its production consumes many times more resources. Some 77 percent of the world's arable land is used for meat and milk production, even though animal products provide only about 18 percent of the world's calorie needs. Even if there were an evolutionary link between meat consumption and becoming human, we should be able to emancipate ourselves from it today.

Moreover, numerous paleoanthropological studies cast doubt on, or refute, the "meat made us human" theory. For example, a team led by Ana Navarrete of the University of Zurich found no further evidence in the animal kingdom for the expensive-tissue hypothesis in extensive analyses. To be sure, "this highly intuitive idea has gained wide acceptance in paleoanthropology and many other fields, and is fueling public discussions about the optimal human diet," the group wrote in the journal Nature in 2011. However: "Contrary to the predictions of the expensive-tissue hypothesis, we found no negative correlations between the relative size of the brain and the digestive tract, other expensive organs or their combined sum among mammals or within [nonhuman] primates." It would be most surprising if the principle applied solely to human evolution.

In a 2022 study, a research group led by paleoanthropologists W. Andrew Barr of George Washington University and Briana Pobiner of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History took another systematic look at the purported archaeological evidence for the "meat made us human" theory. The scientists compiled data from 59 sites from nine major research areas in East Africa, ranging in age from 2.6 to 1.2 million years old. Then the team put all previous bone finds into chronological perspective. Archaeological evidence of meat consumption does increase sharply when looking at specimens linked to the emergence of the Homo erectus species, the researchers reported in the journal PNAS. However, they found, this trend reflects the scientific focus on that period of evolutionary development; that is, there is simply more material collected from sites linked to early Homo erectus. As a result, the picture is distorted and the connection between eating meat and the evolution of the genus Homo is falsely underscored, they said. "Our study undermines the idea that eating large quantities of meat drove evolutionary changes in our early ancestors," Barr said in a press release.

Harvard primatologist Richard Wrangham goes even further. He argues that the greatest revolution in human nutrition occurred not when we started eating meat, but when we learned to cook. By pounding and heating foods, he says, they are "predigested" so that our bodies have to expend less energy breaking them down. Cooked food would thus allow humans to absorb more energy than raw food, ultimately providing more fuel for the brain in less time.

Wrangham tested his theory by offering raw and cooked food to rats and mice. The result: mice raised on cooked food gained 15 to 40 percent more weight than mice fed only raw food. Whether cooked food was really the key driver behind human evolution, however, is difficult to prove in detail. Fireplaces leave much more perishable traces than stone tools and bones. They are therefore more difficult to trace and date. It is possible that humans began cooking their food until it was soft much earlier than we think.

Victims of Our Own Success

The flip side of Wrangham's hypothesis is that we now have become so good at processing food that-for the first time in human evolution-many people eat more calories than they can burn in a day. "After millennia of food scarcity, we've been living in food abundance for almost 70 years. Our bodies can't handle that," says Hans Hauner, professor of nutritional medicine at the Technical University of Munich. "We see today that high meat consumption shortens the lives of many people and can contribute to numerous diseases such as diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular ailments." It would therefore do us good to significantly reduce our meat consumption.

In the course of human history, meat never displaced other dietary components; it supplemented them. It's a bit like equipping a city with a subway system: it doesn't replace anything; it just increases efficiency. "In the course of their evolution, humans have always consumed what was available to them," Hauner explains. Thus, it is not meat consumption that makes us human, but rather our enormous metabolic adaptability. "Humans, unlike many other animals, are able to extract from different food sources in their environment what ensures their survival." Our muscles can burn carbohydrates, but likewise metabolize fatty acids. In the same way, our brains can also switch from a sugar-based diet, at least in part, to a ketogenic diet.

Lutz Kindler of the Leibniz Center for Archaeology agrees from a paleoanthropological perspective. "Animals, unlike plants, are independent of the season and available even in the most inhospitable regions of this earth," he says. "So when humans started moving northward from Africa, there were many advantages to accessing additional, nonplant food sources." There were also the social aspects of hunting and eating meat. "People had to organize themselves to be able to kill and cut up large animals despite their physical inferiority." That probably brought them together. Meat and its exploitation, he said, therefore had an influence on our behavioral evolution more than anything else. "From my point of view, however, meat was and is not necessarily nutritionally relevant. Proteins alone do not have a particularly high calorific value," Kindler adds.

The question remains whether we still need animal proteins and the micronutrients contained in meat today. As nutritionist Hauner points out, "Today there are quite competitive sportsmen who nourish themselves through a purely vegetarian or vegan diet. So you can also optimally supply your muscles and brain with vegetable proteins."

While studies worldwide have shown the value of a balanced, healthy diet with some amount of meat, dairy and other animal products, he says, "the only one that is really challenging is a vegan lifestyle. And even there, in this day and age, there are numerous ways to replace the missing substances."

Paleoanthropologist Kindler, meanwhile, believes that tastes and food sources are "handed down and more of a social issue than one of physiological evolution or instinct." So if people were to return more to the diet of their ancestors, eat more local fruits and vegetables, and eat significantly less meat, it would be good news for their health-and for our planet. After all, humans' enormous adaptability and insatiable appetite for meat today is one thing above all: an ecological disaster.

This article originally appeared in Spektrum der Wissenschaft and was reproduced with permission.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meat-eating may not have made us human after all, say paleoanthropologists

# data[].attributes.body
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/04/uk-covid-takeaway-habits-endure-fast-food-calorie-intake-remains-high-pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The lure of a take-home pizza or greasy stir-fry may be hard to resist, but are there other convenient and tasty takeaway options that are better for your health?

Save

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

Save this article for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime.

Got it

How often do you order takeaway? Is it a weekly ritual? Or more of an occasional indulgence?

Or maybe you're one of the many Australians who spend a good chunk of their pay packet each week on takeaway food to help manage a lack of time and ingredients on hand to make a healthy, balanced meal?

Given the growing number of dinner options, and ever-expanding range of delivery options and cuisines, the allure of takeaway is hard to resist.

But if your goal is to improve your health and manage your weight, is it actually possible to have "healthy" takeaway food?

Burgers might look tasty, but are they good for you? iStock

What is in takeaway food?

While some cuisines may appear healthy, with brightly coloured vegetables, lean meat, salads and even healthier menu items, the reality is that the most popular takeaway menus generally reveal a range of processed ingredients with roughly double the calorie load of similar meals prepared at home.

This is largely due to the liberal use of extra fats and sauces, which improve the taste and texture of meals. Plus the fact that healthier, leaner proteins are expensive, and as such often fattier, larger portions are used, with plenty of deep-fried options. This means that even when opting for a "healthier" alternative, you are getting much greater amounts of fat and calories.

It's about the meal balance?

The other fundamental issue with takeaway food is that it generally lacks the meal balance of a calorie-controlled dinner you would prepare at home. This means carbohydrate-rich foods such as bread, wraps, pizza bases, rice, pasta and noodles tend to be the focus of most takeaway options, followed by fatty sources of protein such as fried meats, burger patties, chicken thighs and wings and very little salad or vegetable bulk.

The result is that most takeaway meals are packed with fat, lack the ideal amounts of protein and offer very little fibre, which also means you often end up eating a whole lot more than you need to.

Make a quick stir-fry at home with one protein and one vegetable. William Meppem

Let's talk about oil

One of the biggest issues with fast food, and foods we buy pre-made away from the home in general is the types and volume of oil used in production.

Not only is much more oil used in the preparation of deep-fried foods such as fries, salt and pepper squid, schnitzels, popped chicken, and tempura, these foods also heavily feature on the menus of pubs, restaurants and fast-food outlets.

This adds lots of extra fat into even seemingly healthy menu items and, over time, consuming these foods frequently results in us shifting the overall fat balance towards one that is pro-inflammatory.

It is this Western style of eating, in which the combination of refined vegetable oils, processed forms of carbohydrate and a high sugar intake are all working to promote inflammatory diseases including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer.

The worst culprits?

Anything deep fried, or that comes in a meal deal is unlikely to be a good option, which means most burger joints, pizza chains and fried chicken are best avoided if health is on your mind.

In many cases it is the compound nature of such meals that is the issue. Burgers are teamed with fries, sugary drinks and dessert while fried chicken is served with chips, potato and wings plus a soft drink in a "meal deal". The result is a single lunch or dinner that contains more calories than the average person needs in an entire day.

Naked burrito bowls are a healthier takeaway option - or make this spicy tuna roll bowl at home. Katrina Meynink

The best of a bad bunch

When ordering takeaway food, some options are healthier than others nutritionally speaking. Here are a few "better" choices to try from mainstream cuisines and categories.

Burgers: Naked burgers, salad, low-fat Subway

Chicken: Grilled chicken strips, salad

Chinese: Steamed dumplings, steamed greens

Fish and chips: Grilled fish, Greek salad

Japanese: Teriyaki chicken, sashimi, miso, edamame

Mexican: Naked burrito bowls, fajitas, corn

Pub food: Steak, salmon, grilled chicken breast, vegies, salad

Thai: Chicken, prawn and vegetable stir-fries, Thai beef salad

Vietnamese: Low-carb rice paper rolls, Vietnamese salads

Something to consider

When looking for healthier takeaway options, perhaps the real question you should ultimately ask yourself is whether it's really worth spending up to $100 to feed your household on greasy chicken, fish or stir-fries when you could make a tastier, fresher option at home in five to 10 minutes, often for a fraction of the price.

The best recipes from Australia's leading chefs straight to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is there such a thing as healthy takeaway? A dietitian's guide to what to pick if you just can't quit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It might be hard to resist the lure of a take-home pizza or stir-fry, but are there other convenient and tasty takeaway options that are better for your health?

# data[].attributes.headline
( Harb AL saidi ) Death penalty is increasingly seen by Americans as being 'unfairly' administered, Gallup report finds

# data[].attributes.subject
( Harb AL saidi ) Death penalty is increasingly seen by Americans as being 'unfairly' administered, Gallup report finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More Americans now believe the death penalty, which is undergoing a yearslong decline of use and support, is being administered unfairly, a finding that is adding to its growing isolation in the U.S., according to an annual report on capital punishment.

But whether the public's waning support for the death penalty and the declining number of executions and death sentences will ultimately result in the abolition of capital punishment in the U.S. remains uncertain, experts said.

"There are some scholars who are optimistic the death penalty will be totally eradicated pretty soon," said Eric Berger, a law professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "I think what's more likely is it's going to continue to decline. But I think it's less likely that in the foreseeable future it'll totally disappear."

In 2023, there were 24 executions in the U.S., with the final one for the year taking place Thursday in Oklahoma. Additionally, 21 people were sentenced to death in 2023, which was the ninth consecutive year where fewer than 30 people were executed and fewer than 50 people received death sentences, according to a report by the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center.
WASHINGTON GOVERNOR SIGNS BILL ELIMINATING DEATH PENALTY IN STATE
Only five states - Texas, Florida, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Alabama - conducted executions this year. That was the lowest number in 20 years, said Robin M. Maher, executive director of the nonprofit center, which takes no position on capital punishment but has criticized the way states carry out executions.

"That shows the death penalty is again becoming increasingly isolated in its use in the United States," Maher said.

A Gallup poll from October found 50% of Americans believe capital punishment is applied unfairly, compared to 47% who believe it is fairly implemented, Maher said. This was the highest such number since Gallup first began asking about the fairness of the death penalty's application in 2000.

Catherine Grosso, a professor with Michigan State University's College of Law, said the Gallup survey result could be tied in part to more young people and others questioning the U.S. criminal justice system following the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a police officer.

Nearly 200 death row exonerations since 1975, including three in 2023, also have helped changed people's minds about the fairness of the death penalty, Maher said.

In recent years, various individuals across the country, including conservative legislators, have raised concerns about the death penalty or debated its future, Grosso said.

But in some states including Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma and Texas, the death penalty remains deeply entrenched, Berger said.

Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed bills enacting two new death penalty laws. One allows the death penalty in child rape convictions, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning capital punishment in such cases. The other law ends a unanimous jury requirement in death penalty sentencing.

"If you commit a crime that is really, really heinous, you should have the ultimate punishment," DeSantis said in May, commenting on the death penalty for child rape convictions.

Ongoing difficulties by states in securing supplies of execution drugs have prompted some states to explore new and untested methods of execution or revive previously abandoned ones, according to the center's report.

Alabama has set a January execution date for what would be the nation's first attempt to execute an inmate with nitrogen gas. In July, Idaho became the fifth state to authorize executions by firing squad. The last time a U.S. inmate was executed by firing squad was in 2010.
IDAHO'S MOVE TO RESURRECT FIRING SQUAD 'MAKES SENSE' AS 'QUICKEST, SUREST' DEATH PENALTY OPTION, EXPERT SAYS
The center's report said a majority of states, 29, have either abolished the death penalty or paused executions.

Corinna Lain, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia, said she thinks the number of states that don't have the death penalty could easily rise to 40. But a nationwide ban would need action from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lain and other experts said that's unlikely to happen as recent actions show the high court is not going to get in the way of states carrying out executions. The center's report said the Supreme Court granted only one stay of execution out of 34 such requests made since its 2022-23 term.

Texas, the nation's busiest capital punishment state, has not been immune to the ongoing debate over the death penalty.

Earlier this year, the GOP-led Texas House passed a bill that would eliminate the death penalty in cases involving someone was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The bill ultimately failed as it was never taken up by the Texas Senate.

GOP state Rep. Jeff Leach said in March the bill was not part of a secret effort to do away with the death penalty in Texas.

"I believe that in Texas we need the death penalty," Leach said. "But I am, as a supporter of the death penalty, against executing people who at the time they commit the offense had a severe mental illness."

Even in Texas, there can be some change with the death penalty, Berger said.

"But you can't see the kind of change where you could expect them to just say, 'Ah, we're done with capital punishment altogether.' At least not yet," Berger said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Death penalty is increasingly seen by Americans as being 'unfairly' administered, Gallup report finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An annual report on capital punishment says more Americans now believe the death penalty is administered unfairly. The report says a Gallup poll from October that found 50% of Americans believe capital punishment is applied unfairly is another sign of the death penalty's further isolation in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A good work-life balance and better career prospects have convinced thousands of students from Asia to come and study in Australia.

International students were quick to praise Australia's work culture, saying it allowed them to expand their learning and seek opportunities outside the classroom to develop their careers.

Earlier this month, the Asia-Pacific Association of International Education conference took place in Perth, and students shared their experiences.

Work-life balance

Tsubasa Wada is studying for a Master of Accounting at Murdoch University.

The Japanese student has revelled in Australia's work-life balance culture.

"In Japanese society, it's often considered desirable to devote my time to work in order to earn good money," she said.

"When facing my future, I realised that finding happiness in both work and personal life is essential for me."

Although studying has its challenges, Ms Wada found her life has had more balance in Perth, giving her more fulfilment.

Exploring new opportunities

Sheldon Ying appreciates how Australian students focus on working together instead of competing.

He is studying for a Master of Information Technology at the University of Western Australia and previously worked as a data developer in his home country, China, before returning to university.

He was motivated to pursue a postgraduate degree in Australia to fill the knowledge gaps he found when working at home.

"In Australia, the most important ... characteristic I noticed is the choice we have, different courses," he said.

Having space outside of the classroom has given him time to explore new opportunities through volunteering and community development.

"I think it let me have a better understanding of my role here in Australia," Mr Ying said.

"I feel like I need to adapt to local culture here, for example, volunteer engagement in social networking ... which can give me a chance to explore different things."

He joined a network of volunteer coders who have helped various charities improve their online presence.

"My job was to redesign websites for charity, helping those [who have] survived domestic violence," he said.

"Not only did I gain some friendships, but also I combined my professional skills with social responsibility."

The support international students receive is something Mr Ying has greatly appreciated.

Welcoming community

Andre Aquino is studying for a Master of Professional Communication at Edith Cowan University.

Although he hails from the Philippines, he has felt more connected to other cultures by spending time in Australia.

"Australia has a reputation internationally for being a prime educational provider, and so people from different countries come here to study and you get to meet them," he said.

The accommodating nature of Australian culture has also allowed him to engage with different types of people.

"[People] are a lot chattier here than they are back home," he said.

"It's nice for someone who comes from a country or a culture that, I suppose is more insular, you don't talk as much to strangers, to a country where people do talk often to strangers.

"It makes you feel more a part of the community," Mr Aquino said.

Ms Wada has also found the collaborative nature of Australian culture beneficial.

"In Australia, networking and meeting new people is really essential," she said.

"In Japan, I didn't experience that ... because in the education system, we don't have it."

Gaining confidence

Abby Leong recently graduated from Curtin University with a Bachelor of Commerce.

She is from Malaysia and said she gained more independence and confidence to pursue her career goals from studying in Australia.

"The thing that I learned in work [in Australia] is that you have to believe [in] yourself, that you can be built through the work," she said.

"Currently, I'm more likely to encourage myself, if I really liked the job description, no matter how hard it looks, to just go apply for it."

Ms Leong feels a strong sense of freedom in Australia, driven by the community-based learning and support networks available.

"I feel so much freedom here, so much freedom," she said.

"I think when you really put yourself into a situation you can gain [a lot]."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International students praise Australian culture and education system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A good work-life balance and better career prospects have convinced thousands of students from Asia to come and study in Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MP Richard Drax calls for more wild animals to be culled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deer and foxes should be killed because they have no predators, South Dorset MP Richard Drax says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animal rights campaigners are calling on the UK government to ban testing ingredients used for make-up on animals.

Testing cosmetic products and ingredients on animals remains banned in the UK, the government insists.

But the Home Office has issued licences that allow testing of ingredients that might affect worker safety.

The High Court said that the government was acting legally after a case was brought by animal rights activists.

Testing on animals in the UK had only been allowed if the benefits gained from the research outweighed any animal suffering, for example for medicines.

However, in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients.

'Regrettable'

Last week it emerged that since 2019 the government has been issuing licences for animal testing of cosmetic ingredients in line with EU chemical rules, which it retained despite leaving the EU in 2020.

It is not known how many such licences have been issued or to whom.

The issuing of licences was revealed in a High Court case brought by animal rights campaigners.

Mr Justice Linden ruled in favour of the government, saying that the licenses were not in conflict with the government's ban on cosmetics testing.

But he said it was "regrettable" the public had not been informed about the change in policy.

When asked if the government is restarting animal testing, the Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson said: "No absolutely not. The ban on using animals to test cosmetic products or ingredients for the consumer will remain completely in force and there are absolutely no plans to change that.

"It also remains the case that it is unlawful for any business to sell cosmetic products or their ingredients that have been tested for the consumer on animals.

"Any change in EU law on this will not impact our position and we will take the necessary steps to ensure this is the case. There will be no weakening on our position on animal testing."

PM 'misinformed'

In response, Campaign group Cruelty Free International said: "Unfortunately, the prime minister is misinformed about the government's position on animal testing for cosmetics.

"A policy banning such tests was first introduced in 1998. However, in a letter to Cruelty Free International in August 2021, the Home Office admitted that the policy had 'changed' (i.e. been abandoned), to bring the UK into line with an EU ruling in a case called Symrise.

"When Cruelty Free International challenged the new approach in a recent judicial review, the Home Office disclosed that it had been secretly granting licences to test for cosmetics since February 2019.

"A High Court judge ruled that legally it was entitled to, based on his interpretation of EU general chemicals legislation known as REACH and its relationship with the EU Cosmetics Regulation."

The campaign group added: "The government also said separately that the policy applied to worker safety testing. The prime minister's statement refers to tests 'for the consumer'.

"Whether labelled as consumer or worker safety, the animal tests are identical. The government is now unquestionably once more allowing cosmetics testing on animals for the benefit of consumers."

'Horrified'

The Body Shop, a global beauty company, has said they share the concerns of Cruelty Free International that the ban was effectively lifted. They are also calling on the government to reinstate the ban immediately.

Dr Penny Hawkins, head of the RSPCA's animals in science department, said: "We've long been concerned about the UK government's decision to allow animal testing to satisfy chemical safety legislation even when a substance may go on to be used exclusively in a cosmetics product.

"This is in conflict with the ban on the use of animals to test cosmetic products or their ingredients.

It also flies in the face of deeply-held and legitimate concerns about this use of animals, held by the RSPCA and the public - many of whom will be horrified that cosmetic ingredients could again be tested on animals.

"The RSPCA wants to see a global commitment to replacing the use of animals in science, with an immediate end to the use of animal testing for consumer products."

A new chemicals strategy is expected to be published this year outlining the government's position on the use and testing of chemicals in the UK - which may include further guidance to cosmetic companies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ban testing of make-up ingredients on animals, government urged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal rights campaigners are calling on the UK government to ban testing ingredients used for make-up on animals. Testing cosmetic products and ingredients on animals remains banned in the UK, the government insists. But the Home Office has issued licences that allow testing of ingredients that might affect worker safety.

# data[].attributes.headline
(Retaj Alshammairi) What is one negative effect technology has had on education?

# data[].attributes.subject
(Retaj Alshammairi) What is one negative effect technology has had on education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While technology has revolutionized K-12 education, its integration has not been without challenges. There do exist potential negative impacts, including issues like the digital divide, unequal access to resources, and concerns about screen time. Additionally, we see potential drawbacks of over-reliance on technology, such as diminished face-to-face interactions, the risk of cybersecurity threats, and the need for comprehensive teacher training.

Examining these aspects and staying informed via K-12 tech innovation news provides a holistic understanding of how technology, while transformative, necessitates careful consideration to mitigate its negative effects in the realm of K-12 education.

What is one negative effect technology has had on education?

One significant negative effect of technology on K-12 education is the exacerbation of educational inequities. The digital divide widens as some students lack access to essential devices and reliable internet connectivity, hindering their ability to fully participate in digital learning environments. Students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds often face challenges in acquiring the necessary technology, creating disparities in educational access and opportunities.

This inequity extends beyond access to include variations in digital literacy skills. Students with limited exposure to technology at home may struggle to navigate digital platforms, putting them at a disadvantage in the increasingly technology-dependent educational landscape.

The shift to online and hybrid learning models, while offering flexibility, inadvertently amplifies existing disparities. Students without adequate technology resources may find it difficult to engage in virtual classrooms, complete assignments, or access supplementary educational materials.

As a result, the negative impact of technology on education and equity poses a critical challenge that needs thoughtful consideration and targeted interventions to ensure that all students have equal access to quality education in the digital age.

What is one positive effect technology has had on education?

Discussing technology's impact on education leads to an exploration of the positive and negative effects of technology on education.

A notable positive effect of technology on K-12 education is the democratization of information and enhanced learning opportunities. Digital tools and online resources have broken down geographical barriers, providing students with access to a vast array of educational content regardless of their location. Platforms like online textbooks, educational websites, and interactive learning applications offer diverse materials that cater to different learning styles.

Technology has also facilitated personalized learning experiences. Adaptive learning platforms, powered by artificial intelligence, analyze individual student progress and tailor instructional content to meet specific needs. This targeted approach enhances understanding and skill development, fostering a more efficient and effective learning process.

Overall, the positive impact of technology on K-12 education lies in its ability to democratize information, offer personalized learning experiences, and enhance collaboration, ultimately enriching the educational journey for students.

How technology is affecting education

While technology offers numerous benefits to K-12 education, its integration can present challenges and negative effects. 10 negative effects of technology on education include:

1. Digital Divide: Unequal access to technology exacerbates educational inequalities, with some students lacking necessary devices or reliable internet access for remote learning.

2. Over-Reliance: Excessive dependence on technology may lead to a passive learning experience, hindering critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

3. Screen Time Concerns: Prolonged screen time can contribute to health issues, including eye strain, disrupted sleep patterns, and potential negative impacts on physical well-being.

4. Cybersecurity Risks: The increased use of online platforms exposes educational institutions to potential cybersecurity threats, compromising student data and privacy.

5. Social Isolation: Excessive use of technology may lead to decreased face-to-face interactions, hindering the development of social skills and interpersonal relationships.

6. Distraction: Technology in the classroom can be a source of distraction, with students potentially accessing non-educational content during lessons.

7. Teacher Training Challenges: Inadequate training for educators on integrating technology effectively into teaching practices may limit its positive impact.

8. Equity Concerns: Varied access to advanced technology tools may create disparities in educational experiences, disadvantaging students without equal access.

9. Loss of Traditional Skills: Overemphasis on digital skills might lead to a neglect of traditional skills, such as handwriting or manual problem-solving techniques.

10. Depersonalization: In certain instances, technology may depersonalize the learning experience, reducing teacher-student interactions and impacting the teacher's ability to provide individualized attention.

Balancing the advantages and drawbacks of technology is crucial to harness its potential while mitigating these negative effects in K-12 education.

Are there any disadvantages to using technology for education

Certainly, there are disadvantages to using technology in K-12 education, and the negative effects of technology on students cannot be ignored. The digital divide exacerbates educational inequities, as students without access to necessary devices or reliable internet face challenges participating in digital learning. Excessive screen time poses health concerns, contributing to issues such as eye strain and sedentary behavior.

Overreliance on technology may lead to a loss of face-to-face interactions, impacting social skills and emotional development. Traditional teaching methods might be overshadowed, potentially diminishing critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Concerns about data privacy and security arise with the collection of sensitive student information. Additionally, the rapid evolution of technology may require continuous investment in professional development for educators to keep pace.

While technology offers numerous benefits, careful consideration of these disadvantages is crucial to ensuring that its integration in K-12 education aligns with the holistic development and well-being of students.

Conclusion

It is crucial for educators and stakeholders to address the digital divide in K-12 education. They must advocate for equitable access to technology, support initiatives bridging gaps in device and internet access, and engage in discussions to ensure inclusive educational opportunities for all students to work towards a more accessible and equitable future in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is one negative effect technology has had on education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is one negative effect technology has had on education? The growing digital divide remains a major equity issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal testing: What is it and why are people talking about it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government has allowed some animal testing for makeup ingredients. But what is animal testing and what are the arguments for and against it?

# data[].attributes.headline
( Nguyen Tan Sang ) How Social Media Affects Your Teen’s Mental Health: A Parent’s Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
( Nguyen Tan Sang ) How Social Media Affects Your Teen’s Mental Health: A Parent’s Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mental health issues among teens have been rising for more than a decade, and some experts wonder how much social media use is to blame. If you're a parent questioning if-and how-you should monitor the way your teenager uses social media, you're not alone.

In the spring of 2023, United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, released an advisory called Social Media and Youth Mental Health, in which he says there is growing evidence that social media is causing harm to young people's mental health. Soon after, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued its own health advisory. A year later, in June 2024, Dr. Murthy called for a surgeon general's warning label on social media platforms, which would require an act of Congress to implement.

The issue is complicated, however. While there are indicators that it can have a profound risk of harm to teens (more on that below), social media use aimed at making healthy connections with others may actually be beneficial to some people. Dr. Murthy's report indicates that more research is needed to fully understand the impact of social media. For parents, this means there are no easy answers.

"The issues we face now with social media are similar to those we faced when television came out," says Linda Mayes, MD, chair of the Yale Child Study Center (YCSC). She explains that, as with TV watching, there are pros and cons to social media for young people. "So, how do we help parents filter out the parts that may be detrimental?"

Below, Dr. Mayes and YCSC's Yann Poncin, MD, a child psychiatrist, offer advice for parents trying to help their teenagers use social media in a positive way.

But first, some background.

Social media use and teens: Background, benefits, and harms

As a parent, you might ask yourself, "What, specifically, about social media use can have a negative impact on my teen?"

Dr. Murthy's advisory was based on what it describes as a "substantial review of the available evidence." It raises a variety of concerns, including the amount of time adolescents spend on platforms, the type of content they consume (or are exposed to), and the degree to which their online interactions disrupt activities essential for health, such as sleep and exercise. It points out that social media can also affect young users in different ways, depending on their strengths and vulnerabilities as individuals, as well as their cultural, historical, and socio-economic backgrounds.

The report stresses that the brain is going through a highly sensitive period between the ages of 10 and 19, when identities and feelings of self-worth are forming. Frequent social media use may be associated with distinct changes in the developing brain, potentially affecting such functions as emotional learning and behavior, impulse control, and emotional regulation.

What are the potential benefits of social media use by teens?

Some teenagers experience a benefit when they use social media to foster positive connections with others who share common interests or identities (if they are seeking a connection with others who are, say, members of a particular racial identity), creating a space for self-expression. Relationships formed in communities like these can create opportunities for positive interactions with more diverse peer groups than are available to them offline, according to Dr. Murthy's report.

The advisory points to a 2022 survey of American teenagers and their parents by the Pew Research Center, which showed that a majority of respondents felt that social media helps teenagers feel more accepted (58%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), that they have a place to show their creative side (71%), and that they are more connected to what's going on in their friends' lives (80%).

"Posting to let your friends know how you've been spending your time can be a positive or healthy way to connect and hear about each other's day," says Dr. Poncin. "It's no different than 30 years ago when adolescents would be on the phone for three hours connecting with their friends-only now you're online with your friends, saying, 'Meet you after school,' or 'Did you hear about this?'"

What are the potential harms of social media use by teens?

Over the last decade, increasing evidence has identified the potential negative impact of social media on adolescents. According to a research study of American teens ages 12-15, those who used social media over three hours each day faced twice the risk of having negative mental health outcomes, including depression and anxiety symptoms.

The advisory states that other studies "point to a higher relative concern of harm in adolescent girls and those already experiencing poor mental health, as well as for particular health outcomes, such as cyberbullying-related depression, body image and disordered eating behaviors, and poor sleep quality linked to social media use."

"What's more, the social media algorithms are built to promote whatever you seem interested in," says Dr. Mayes. "If a teen searches for any kind of mental health condition, such as depression or suicide, it's going to feed them information about those things, so soon they may begin to think that everyone around them is depressed or thinking about suicide, which is not necessarily good for mental health."

When does the kind of content teens see become an issue?

Teens can easily access extreme, inappropriate, and harmful content. In certain cases, deaths have been linked to suicide- and self-harm-related content, such as "cutting," partial asphyxiation, and risk-taking challenges on social media platforms, according to Dr. Murthy's report. Studies also found that discussing or showing this content can normalize these behaviors.

Eating disorders are yet another concern. A review of 50 studies across 17 countries between 2016 and 2021 published in PLOS Global Public Health suggested that relentless online exposure to largely unattainable physical ideals may trigger a distorted sense of self and eating disorders. This is considered to be a particular problem among girls.

In addition, people who target adolescents-for instance, adults seeking to sexually exploit teens or financially extort them through the threat or actual distribution of intimate images-may use social media platforms for these types of predatory behaviors, according to the Surgeon General's advisory.

Why is excessive use of social media a problem?

The excessive use of social media can harm teens by disrupting important healthy behaviors. Some researchers think that exposure to social media can overstimulate the brain's reward center and, when the stimulation becomes excessive, can trigger pathways comparable to addiction.

Excessive use has also been linked to sleep problems, attention problems, and feelings of exclusion in adolescents. And sleep is essential for the healthy development of teens, according to Dr. Murthy's advisory.

Social media use in teens: A guide for parents

After reading the background, as a parent, you might ask yourself, "Sure, but do kids really use social media that much?"

Social media use among young people is nearly universal now, based on surveys from the Pew Research Center. In 2022, up to 95% of teenagers surveyed (ages 13 to 17) reported using social media, and more than a third of them use it "almost constantly."

Pew has also tracked which social media platforms (or "apps") teenagers are using. In 2023, it found the majority of teens-9 out of 10 for those ages 13 to 17-use YouTube, followed by TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram. (Their use of Facebook dropped dramatically; there was also a decrease in the use of Twitter, now called X, although that was not as steep.)

With that in mind, YCSC experts provide a guide for parents concerned about their teens' social media use.

1. Determine the age your child will have access to social media.

Experts are still exploring whether there is a "right age" for a child to access social media. The APA explains that adolescents mature at different rates, which makes establishing a universal age recommendation difficult.

Although the minimum age most commonly required by social media platforms in the U.S. is 13, nearly 40% of children ages 8-12 use social media, according to Dr. Murthy's report. That signals how difficult it can be to enforce these rules without parental supervision.

One strategy is to make a social media plan for your family long before the teenage years, Dr. Poncin says. "In my opinion, elementary school-age children should not have full-on internet access using a device with all the social media apps."

In terms of phones, they can start with a "dumbphone," a cell phone that doesn't have email, an internet browser, and other features found on smartphones, he adds.

For middle-schoolers who show maturity and responsibility-who can get themselves to sleep and do their homework, for example-additional access may be fine, notes Dr. Poncin. But he suggests delaying full access to smartphones for as long as possible, opting for a device allowing you to add more apps as your child matures.

Establishing a family social media plan might also be useful-the American Academy of Pediatrics offers a tool that can help. In addition to setting the age at which you plan to start giving your kids phones or internet access, this plan can be used to establish rules and educate children and teens about being careful about privacy settings, avoiding strangers online, not giving out personal information, and knowing how to report cyberbullying, Dr. Mayes says.

2. Keep devices out of the bedroom.

Research shows a relationship between social media use and poor sleep quality, reduced sleep duration, and sleep difficulties in young people, according to Dr. Murthy's advisory. For teens, poor sleep is linked to emotional health issues and a higher risk for suicide.

According to Dr. Murthy's report, on a typical weekday, nearly one-third of adolescents report using screen media until midnight or later. (While screen media use includes various digital activities, social media apps are the most commonly used applications by teens.)

"Knowing that, try to create a culture at home where all phones are turned off by a certain time, and make sure it's at least one hour before going to bed," Dr. Poncin says.

However, you may find that bedtime rules don't work as well as your kids get older. It may be necessary to ask your teen to put their phone outside the bedroom before going to bed. "But, if the response is, 'I do my homework late and have a group chat about math, so I'm going to need the phone to group chat,' and you suspect your teen isn't being honest, that will be a different conversation," Dr. Poncin says. "But having these open conversations is critical."

3. Keep the lines of communication open, and let your teen make mistakes.

It will be easier to talk to your teens about social media if you have comfortable conversations with them about other issues, the doctors say.

"I don't believe you should monitor the content of your teen's phone, because a teenager should have privacy," Dr. Poncin says. "An important part of the teenage years is figuring out who you are in the world. So, it's important for them to explore and even make mistakes without you hovering around them." The goal is to keep lines of communication open and establish some trust with your child, so they'll come to you if there are issues, he adds.

This, too, is similar to the advice given when parents were concerned about the impact of television on children, adds Dr. Mayes. "Research showed that watching TV in and of itself wasn't bad, but it began to have potentially negative effects on kids' behavior when it was used as a babysitter," she says. "The message to parents was to sit beside their kids and watch TV with them, and then talk about what they're watching."

Neither you nor your teen will be happy if you sit beside them and scroll down your social media feeds together, but you can take the time to ask how social media is working for them, Dr. Mayes suggests. "So, you're not saying, 'Oh no! You're on social media!' Rather, you're normalizing it and making it clear that you're willing to talk about what they're experiencing or learning. This sets it up for them to talk to you if they run into a problem, instead of going to their peers or looking for solutions online," she says.

4. Be mindful of your approach when talking to your teen.

Although keeping the line of communication open matters, how you have those conversations is equally important. If you are concerned about your teen's social media use and feel the need to intervene, you might say something like, "It seems like you're on the phone so much that I don't see you just doing homework like you used to do, so I'm just worried how healthy this is for you in terms of getting your stuff done. What do you think about that?" Dr. Poncin says.

You might even need to be more assertive, for instance, saying, "I've noticed that you're on your phone until 1 a.m. When I go to the bathroom, your light is on, and you're on your phone. That's not healthy. So, can we come up with a plan that you're most comfortable with?"

5. Follow the rules yourself.

As a parent, you are a role model and that means following all the same rules you are setting for your children-if you ask your teenager to limit their screen time, you should do so as well, says Dr. Mayes, noting that it's not uncommon to see parents looking at their phones when they are out with their kids.

You might have a hard time resisting your social media feeds, texts, and emails. Sometimes, it helps to admit to your teenagers that you find it difficult to put down your devices, too. "This a global issue, where parents want their kids to do things differently and better than they do," Dr. Poncin says. "So, once again, having an honest conversation is important."
Note: Cyberbullying and online abuse or exploitation can be reported to the school or the police, or on websites such as Take It Down and CyberTipline, according to the Surgeon General report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Social Media Affects Your Teen's Mental Health: A Parent's Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 2023 U.S. Surgeon General advisory cited growing concerns that social media use impacts young people's mental health. Yale experts offer advice to parents.

# data[].attributes.headline
( TRAN NHAT SON) More than half of UK undergraduates say they use AI to help with essays

# data[].attributes.subject
( TRAN NHAT SON) More than half of UK undergraduates say they use AI to help with essays

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than half of undergraduates say they consult artificial intelligence programmes to help with their essays, while schools are trialling its use in the classroom.

A survey of more than 1,000 UK undergraduates, conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), found 53% were using AI to generate material for work they would be marked on. One in four are using applications such as Google Bard or ChatGPT to suggest topics and one in eight are using them to create content.

Just 5% admitted to copying and pasting unedited AI-generated text into their assessments.

Teachers are also seeking to use AI to streamline their work, with the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) signing up secondary schools for a new research project into the use of AI to generate lesson plans and teaching materials as well as exams and model answers.

Dr Andres Guadamuz, a reader in intellectual property law at the University of Sussex, said it was no surprise that more students were adopting AI and suggested institutions needed to be explicit in discussing how best to use it as a study tool.

"I've implemented a policy of having mature conversations with students about generative AI. They share with me how they utilise it," Guadamuz said.

"My primary concern is the significant number of students who are unaware of the potential for 'hallucinations' and inaccuracies in AI. I believe it is our responsibility as educators to address this issue directly."

The Hepi survey found that one in three students using AI did not know how often it "hallucinates", ie invents statistics, academic citations or book titles to fill in what it perceives to be gaps.

Guadamuz said he had essays handed in last year that clearly used unedited ChatGPT output, given away by the "boring" style in which they were written. But as AI usage has spread, the survey found fewer students were willing to use it.

"The world is evolving, and as educators we need to adapt by establishing clear guidelines and policies, as well as designing more challenging assessments. However, this is difficult in a resource-constrained environment where academics are already overburdened and underpaid," Guadamuz said.

According to the EEF's proposal, the use of AI might instead help cut the workload burden on teachers, as well as improving the quality of their teaching. Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, has said AI could take on the "heavy lifting" of marking and planning for teachers.

Half of the 58 schools in England taking part in the EEF's project will be given a toolkit to create assessment materials such as practice questions, exams and model answers, and to tailor lessons to specific groups of children. The AI-generated lesson plans will be assessed by an independent panel of experts.

Prof Becky Francis, the chief executive of the EEF, said: "There's already huge anticipation around how this technology could transform teachers' roles, but the research into its actual impact on practice is - currently - limited.

"The findings from this trial will be an important contribution to the evidence base, bringing us closer to understanding how teachers can use AI."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than half of UK undergraduates say they use AI to help with essays

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers also using the generative technology to aid with lesson planning, with hopes it could ease the burden of their workload