Bilge - BBC, The Conversation

Hannah - New York Times

• Populism only focuses on one group, called “the people“. Anyone else is excluded from their group.

• It takes a longer period of time to become a powerful populist party and it takes a long time to reverse populism through the creation of a new political language, determination and consistency.

• Populists are mostly misogynist, xenophobic and racist - > they have to be stopped

Examples:

• General examples of populism: nationalist populism now, 1990s globalized liberalism, fascism and communism in the 1930s/1940s, and imperialism in the 19th century

Arguments:

• Populist waves take  a long period of time in order to be reversed; so one has to act against it -> Danger of creating a post-liberalism world if there is no action taken

• Democracies rest on three pillars: the will of the people, trust in politicians, and strong institutions.

• Democracies only work if the people trust the elects

Arguments:

• A democracy is always safeguarded by its laws

  
  

•Behavioural change is essential: Over-reliance on technology avoids the hard truth that we need to change our lifestyles.

•Tech can be a smokescreen: Governments use future tech as an excuse to delay necessary and unpopular climate policies.

•Unrealistic expectations: Many proposed technologies (carbon capture, geoengineering) are unproven, expensive, or speculative.

•Overconsumption is the root problem: Environmental damage is tied to unsustainable growth and consumerism, not just outdated technology.

•False optimism: Belief in “progress” can be a comforting illusion, ignoring the limits of innovation.

•Environmental impact of tech: Even “green” technologies have their own environmental footprints.

•Moral hazard: Relying on future fixes may reduce current efforts to cut emissions.

•Covid shows behaviour can change: Societies are capable of making sacrifices for the greater good, as seen during the pandemic.

Backround: Bilge

In depth: Blanca

In the News: Julika,Finn

1. Technology is unproven and risky

• Many green technologies like CCUS are still unreliable.

• Example: Most CCUS projects have failed and still cause CO2 and methane emissions.

• → May delay real action instead of helping.

2. Extends fossil fuel dependency

• These technologies often rely on natural gas.

• Example: UK could import LNG until after 2050 due to CCUS and blue hydrogen.

• → Keeps us locked into polluting energy sources.

3. Proven solutions are ignored

• Effective measures like insulation and renewables are underfunded.

• Example: Campaigners say we should invest in things that already work.

• → Tech hype distracts from real, working solutions.

Contra (Technological progress can solve environmental issues)

1. Needed to reach net zero

• Some emissions can’t be avoided without tech like CCUS.

• Example: Climate Change Committee calls CCUS a “necessity.”

• → Helps fill gaps where other solutions can’t work.

2. Strengthens energy independence

• Reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels.

• Example: Government says CCUS will make UK less dependent on gas.

• → Supports national security and stability.

3. Boosts innovation and leadership

• Green tech creates jobs and global influence.

• Example: UK aims to lead in hydrogen and CCUS through investment funds.

• → Economic and environmental benefits combined.

•Innovation is essential: Political solutions like the Paris Agreement have largely failed; innovation is now the only viable path.

•New technologies are more effective: Current renewable solutions are insufficient; we need radical new tools and ideas (e.g., geoengineering, carbon capture, solar shields).

•Historical precedent: Humanity has solved past crises through technology (e.g., replacing whale oil with kerosene).

•Economic development needs tech: Developing countries won’t stop burning coal unless cheaper alternatives are provided — innovation is key.

•Technology enables efficiency: We can do more with less through progress (e.g., energy efficiency, alternative materials).

•Delaying innovation is dangerous: Climate change from innovation (steam engine, combustion engine); we must invent our way out, not retreat.

•Geoengineering options exist: Projects like artificial mountains or space-based solar shields are being considered.

•Market-driven change: If green energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, global warming could be solved without drastic lifestyle changes

Elias

He claims the bust was taken illegally in 1913 by German archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt.

The petition also demands the return of the Rosetta Stone and the Dendera Zodiac.

Elias

Elias

Egyptian archaeologist Monica Hanna criticizes the continued display of such artifacts as a form of “cultural colonialism”.

Elias

• Context: In the early 1800s, Lord Elgin took away about half of the Parthenon friezes—likely with the Ottoman authorities' okay. The British Museum later bought them, but Greece has always disputed the legality of their removal and has long pushed to get them back.

• The UK might have a legal leg to stand on, but the author thinks the moral, cultural, and artistic reasons carry more weight. The marbles were created for a specific spot and setting—the Parthenon—and lose a lot of their significance when taken away.

• To Greece, the marbles mean much more than just art—they're a big part of modern national identity and the country's link to its ancient roots.

• The author takes issue with Osborne and Greece's talks saying this matter is too big to handle behind closed doors.

• His idea: a government-led return of the marbles as a show of goodwill, as part of a bigger UK-Greece cultural team-up—including museum swaps, scholars working together, and joint work to bring back other scattered pieces.

• Promotion of Authoritarian and Illiberal Practices

Many populists adopt authoritarian leadership styles, often consolidating power through legal or extralegal means. They use rhetoric like “draining the swamp” to justify limiting opposition voices and suppressing dissent. Populist regimes may curtail civil liberties, silence critics, and even change constitutions to stay in power longer. This shift toward authoritarianism is particularly dangerous because it is often done with electoral legitimacy, giving it a democratic façade while hollowing out democratic norms from within.

• Us vs Them mentality

  Populism creates division in society by portraying it as a struggle between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite” or between “real citizens” and “outsiders.” This oversimplifies complex issues, fuels political polarization, and makes compromise difficult. As a result, it weakens democratic dialogue, threatens social cohesion, and can even lead to violence or democratic decline, as seen in Venezuela.

Contra:

• Not All Populism Is Anti-Democratic

Populism is a political style or strategy—not a specific ideology. Left-wing populists, such as Spain’s Podemos or Greece’s Syriza, often champion democratic reforms, social justice, and citizen empowerment. They promote direct democracy through referenda and local assemblies, which can enhance rather than undermine democratic engagement. These movements criticize elites not to destroy democracy, but to make it more inclusive, transparent, and responsive to ordinary people

Bilge

Contra:

• - Not all populists are anti-democratic or authoritarian
  Malkopoulou warns against automatically equating populism with authoritarianism. Populist movements exist on both the left and the right and can promote inclusion and equality. When populists turn authoritarian, they should be labeled as such this is not inherent to populism itself.

  
  

Bilge

Populist regimes risk prioritizing equality over liberty
According to the research, voters may accept lower economic freedom and personal liberties in exchange for greater equality. This trade-off can create environments where authoritarian practices are tolerated or even welcomed, undermining liberal democratic values like free speech, open markets, or institutional independence.

Contra:

Populism can reduce inequality democratically
Populist governments may slow growth, but they often succeed in making economic systems more equitable. This redistribution—even if costly—can restore a sense of fairness and rebuild public trust in political institutions, which strengthens the democratic bond between government and citizens.

Bilge

Populism replaces reality based governance with polarizing, emotional rhetoric
The Greek populists called a national referendum not to improve negotiations but to strengthen their political position. They ignored expert advice and facts, relying instead on emotional appeals and national pride. This strategy led to even worse austerity measures and long-term damage to the Greek economy, showing how populism prioritizes short-term popularity over responsible governance, endangering democratic stability.

Contra:

Populist failure can strengthen democratic systems in the long run
The Greek experience shows that populist governments, when exposed to the complexities of governance, often fail to deliver. In this sense, populism may serve as a democratic stress test, ultimately reinforcing institutions by forcing political renewal.

Bilge

According to PISA, students who felt distracted by smartphones in math class scored about 15 points less than those who did not report any distraction.

In countries were smartphones were banned from school, students performed better.

However, the problem is that those who are distracted are the majority - 59% in total were distracted and in Canada, it even went up to 80% of distracted students.

For your understanding, PISA considers scoring 20 points less a year lost of learning, making it even more harmful than it seems to be.

Argument 1: Smartphones reduce academic performance and focus

Multiple studies show that smartphone use in classrooms directly harms students’ ability to concentrate and retain information. In fact, research by Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013) found that students who texted during a lecture scored an average of 27% lower on a comprehension quiz compared to those who did not use their phones. The study concluded that even short bursts of smartphone activity split students’ attention and disrupted the learning process.

Source: Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917

Argument 2: Smartphones increase anxiety and reduce classroom well-being

Smartphone presence in classrooms doesn’t just distract—it also affects students’ mental health. A 2017 study published in the journal Environment and Behavior found that students who were physically separated from their phones experienced lower anxiety and better focus than those who had their phones nearby, even if they weren’t actively using them. This suggests that the mere presence of a smartphone can reduce mindfulness and disrupt classroom engagement.

Source: Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Environment and Behavior, 46(3), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512457630

-If smartphones are used in class for learning how do plan on students not being distracted

-> how would you ensure students don‘t use their phones for social media or games

-With how much technology has helped in the past such as renewable energies why doubt the Impact it could have

-limiting technological progress could lead to no progress showing in certain topics such as climate change how do you address this?

-is the technology really the issue or how people use it?

-wouldn’t the refusal of usage of said technological ideas maybe be seen as not confronting environmental issues if they are available solutions?

-so should colonial theft be normalized if the countries can preserve the artefacts?

-why should museums and countries profit from theft in the past and are they not supporting injustice through this

-should countries like GB be allowed to hold the power wether or not a country gets a piece of their heritage back

-How would you feel if someone stole a family heirloom and told you „You wouldnt be able to preserve it“?

-If its all about the education of people wouldn't this educate people on the history of their country and how in the past they stole said artefacts?

-If populism most of the time leads to authoritarian behaviour once in power how does it not damage a democracy

-How can you support populism if in history it has gone to extremes?

-Won’t it be dangerous for a democracy when one singular person states that they embody the will of the people leaving no room for opposition or conflict?

Would you say a burglar deserves to keep stolen family heirlooms because they have a better display case?

How can a country heal from colonial trauma if its cultural memory is locked away overseas?

Should the narrative of world history be written by the looters or the looted?

“If these artefacts are returned, won’t they be hidden in storage or poorly maintained due to lack of resources?”

Rebuttal:

“First, this assumes former colonies are incompetent — a deeply colonial mindset. Second, if the West truly cared about preservation, they could fund collaborative efforts instead of profiting from stolen culture. Ownership and display are two different questions — and ownership belongs to the people these artefacts were taken from.”

POI 2:

“Isn’t it better for humanity that these artefacts are accessible to a global audience in Western museums?”

Rebuttal:

“Global accessibility shouldn’t come at the cost of historical injustice. Artefacts can be shared through loans or digital access — but permanent ownership through colonial theft is not a legitimate way to serve ‘global good’. That’s just sugarcoating exploitation.”POI 3:

“Some of these objects were bought legally — why should they be returned?”

Rebuttal:

“Many of these ‘legal’ purchases happened under colonial occupation, where coercion was normal and locals had no power to refuse. Buying under a gun isn’t fair trade — it’s extortion. Legality under colonialism doesn’t equal legitimacy.”

POI 4:

“How do we decide who to return artefacts to? Some nations don’t even exist anymore, or there are disputes.”

Rebuttal:

“Complexity doesn’t justify injustice. We deal with international restitution cases all the time — from Nazi-looted art to stolen antiquities. The presence of difficulty doesn’t mean we should abandon responsibility. You don’t ignore a crime just because the paperwork is annoying.”

POI 5:

“Won’t this empty out Western museums and destroy their educational value?”

Rebuttal:

“Museums shouldn’t be built on stolen foundations. They can still tell global stories by collaborating, borrowing, and co-curating — without clinging to ownership of artefacts taken through violence. Education doesn’t require possession, it requires ethics.”

POI 6:

“What if artefacts get destroyed in politically unstable regions?”

Rebuttal:

“Then we support infrastructure and conservation efforts — we don’t punish entire cultures for instability caused in part by colonialism itself. Also, artefacts have been destroyed in Western museums too — think of fires at Notre Dame or Brazil’s national museum. No place is 100% safe, but denying return is not the solution.”