The subtitle of the book is “How to Tell Science from Bunk“
I am up to page 48 and I read something that is so obvious but had not occured to me before now. I have spoken to friends and they, too, had not realised this.
Namely, that the fact that “…. a variation on the old latitudinal hypothesis ….. explains a major causal factor explaining the rise of more successful civilizations in Euroasia, say, than in sub-Saharan Africa or on the American continent, is that Euroasia expands along an East-West axis.“
This East-West expansion provides greater opportunity for the invention of agriculture and the domestication of, say, the horse. Simply because feed crops are easier to grow owing to the smaller change in weather patterns. Unlike, the North-South expansion, where there is the problem of having to adjust to different weather towards the North or towards the South.
In a weird way, this post published by Geo Monbiot on the 24th July, 2026, reveals a similar vein to yesterday’s post about the Save Europe Act. I mean they are both about the unfair and unreasonable power held by those in political command.
Over to Mr Monbiot (and I have his permission to republish):
ooOOoo
Chickened-Out
Posted on 24th July 2026
Trashing the living world on behalf of corporate power: is this really all we can expect from the ministers in charge of protecting it?
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 23rd July 2026
There’s a slightly mean question I often ask British people with an interest in the living world: can you name the Environment Secretary? I don’t intend to show them up: it’s not them I’m testing. I watch the brows knit, a finger go up, the mouth open and close. “It’s, you know, the one who … no, they went, didn’t they? That other one …” It’s been like this for seven years.
Why? Because throughout this period, we’ve not had environment secretaries. We’ve had portals through which corporate lobbyists may pass. The last incumbent to represent the wider public interest (and I can scarcely bring myself to type these words) was Michael Gove. In his other roles, he’s widely remembered with loathing and disgust. Out of office, he continues to poison public life, as editor of the Spectator. But in this role, to general astonishment, he placed the public good above special interests.
Standard operating procedure, by contrast, is exemplified by the final acts of the outgoing secretary, whose name, to put you out of your misery, is Emma Reynolds. To give just one example – which could be seen as an embodiment of everything that has gone wrong here – she spent her last weeks in the post trying to remove the brakes on industrial chicken farming.
In front of a parliamentary committee this month, she railed against the planning constraints holding back yet more giant chicken factories (let’s not grace them with the name of farms). If only these obstacles were demolished, she mused, “there is great investment out there waiting to be made … I want to bring down these barriers as much as you do”. She said she had spoken to other departments to ensure permission for new chicken factories was easier to obtain.
Neither she nor the MPs questioning her gave any hint of why these buildings have run into trouble with the planning system. In fact, there was no mention of any of the problems the factories cause: the MPs’ only apparent interest was in what the industry wanted. What’s the point of MPs if they simply channel corporate demands? But these factories are killing some of our most beautiful rivers. They generate far more dung than the surrounding fields can absorb. The surplus washes downhill into the nearest stream.
The only decision that counts is the planning decision. As soon as permission for a chicken unit is granted, the local tributary, and possibly the main stem of the river it drains into, is as good as dead. It’s not even as if these factories support jobs and growth: by killing the rivers, they help to destroy local economies.
I thought we’d won this argument. But argument, it seems, is no match for economic power. Reynolds’s loyalties appeared to lie not with the ecosystems she was meant to protect, but with the lobbyists threatening them. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising: before she joined Keir Starmer’s government, she worked as a lobbyist, representing the financial sector.
Disturbingly, it was the new environment secretary, Angela Eagle, while working as Reynolds’s deputy, who sought to drive through the “planning reforms” the poultry industry is demanding, telling chicken lobbyists “planning should enable ambition, not stifle it”. Will she now take Burnham’s “circuit breaker” promise seriously, and junk this appeasement of one of our most destructive industries?
At a recent farming festival, Reynolds claimed that boosting the poultry sector would enhance our food security. I don’t know how many times we need to point this out, but isn’t it bleeding obvious that it has the opposite effect? The feed sustaining chickens in these factories must be either imported or grown on land that could otherwise directly feed people. There could be more soya in chicken than in tofu: one report estimates that it takes 109g of soya to produce 100g of chicken breast. Yet this is just one of several components of their diet.
The chicken business in the UK is also controlled by a handful of giant companies: another security red light. If food security were the objective, the government would encourage us to eat fewer chickens and other animals, and more plants. But in parliament, Reynolds also proudly announced that she was disregarding the targets set by the government’s Climate Change Committee to reduce livestock numbers. I find myself asking, over and again: “Are they trying to harm this country?”
To advance their dismal agenda, Reynolds and Eagle set up something called the Farming and Food Partnership Board. Its aim is to encourage “closer collaboration between farming, industry and government”. How could it possibly be closer? The environment department, Defra, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the farming industry. The only members of this new board are government ministers and corporate representatives and lobbyists. Among its objectives is a “poultry sector growth plan”, to address the issue of “planning barriers”.
This chickening out is just one of many examples of how, by working for special interests, the environment department has harmed the ecosystems and the people it is supposed to protect. Another is the government’s “delivery plan” to restore nature, released by Reynolds just before she left office. It’s not a plan, and it won’t deliver: just a catalogue of vague hopes and blandishments. It could be summarised as “do nothing, for fear of offending landowners”. Far from meeting its promise to protect and restore 30% of the land in England by 2030, Reynolds’s department has presided over continued decline. That’s her legacy: less nature, less resilience, less security.
Much worse is planned: Starmer’s government proposed a “regulating for growth bill”, whose text we haven’t yet seen, but which appears to threaten even greater assaults on nature protection. It may contain one of his government’s most alarming proposals: creating a system that could be described as pop-up freeports, in which companies all over the country would be able to operate in temporary “sandboxes”, where the usual rules don’t apply. We should see this as a key test of Burnham’s promise to end neoliberalism: will he drop this nonsense?
I’ll keep asking the question, regardless of who occupies this office: do you know the name of the environment secretary? The answer is likely to depend on one factor: whether they are ready to break the grip of corporate power, and defend us and the rest of the living world. Whether, in other words, they want to do their job.
When I first read this article, I thought everyone will be aware, such is the awareness of wildfire smoke in so many places, and media.
Then I realised that this was wrong, and if only one or two people benefit from the advice then it should be republished. The original was on The Conversation.
ooOOoo
Yes, breathing wildfire smoke can harm your health – here’s what you can do to protect yourself
Wildfire smoke is a complex mixture that includes nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and particulate matter. When homes or buildings also burn, they can release an even more toxic stew of chemicals from burning electronics, furniture, plastics, paints and much more.
What you see when you see a smoke plume or when the air is hazy with wildfire smoke are the tiny particles that are too small to fall to the ground right away with gravity.
These particles, which scientists call particulate matter, are very small – we measure them in microns. When you breathe them in, they can harm your health. The smaller the particles, the deeper they can get into your lungs and body.
EPA air quality monitors show high risks from smoke in many parts of the Great Lakes and northeastern U.S. on July 15, 2026. Reds are considered very unhealthy levels. Purples are either extremely unhealthy for light purple or hazardous for areas in maroon. AirNow Fire and Smoke Map
You may have heard the term PM2.5. It means particles that are 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, many times smaller than the width of a human hair. High concentrations of these particles in the air during wildfire smoke episodes are what trigger air quality alerts.
Has wildfire smoke been increasing recently, and why?
Yes, wildfires have become more frequent and more intense just in the past couple of decades, and when wildfires become more frequent and intense, so does the smoke.
Scientists have found that wildfires are becoming more frequent due to a variety of factors that include increases in fire weather – hot, dry, windy conditions that fuel the spread of fires due to climate change – as well as other natural and human factors. The reasons for the increases in wildfires vary in different parts of the world.
Other studies have found that wildfire smoke makes up an increasing portion of the PM2.5 in the air in the U.S., and in many areas it is offsetting the decreases in air pollution that the U.S. has gained through regulations of industrial and vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act.
How could wildfire smoke affect my health?
Some effects of breathing wildfire smoke include shortness of breath, coughing, itchy or watery eyes, headaches, rashes and itchiness. But smoke can cause more serious harm. Numerous epidemiological studies have shown that hospitalizations and emergency department visits for asthma and other respiratory diseases increase during wildfire smoke events.
After you breathe in the particles, they cause inflammation and oxidative stress, and they can move into the blood and spread throughout the body, affecting other organ systems.
The height of a smoke plume, like this one from Colorado’s Aspen Acres fire near Pueblo on July 1, 2026, affects the amount of particles and chemicals people on the ground are exposed to. But generally, if you can smell smoke, you’re breathing it in. Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images
Where can I learn more about wildfire smoke risks where I live?
The first thing to do to protect yourself from wildfire smoke is to know how bad the smoke is and how long it is going to last.
One great place to get information for where you live on current wildfire smoke is fire.airnow.gov. You can zoom in on the map to where you live and find color-coded circles reflecting data from both U.S. EPA air-quality monitors and PurpleAir sensors that people have put in their homes.
The colors show the level of PM2.5 at that location and suggest the associated health risk.
What can I do to protect myself and my family from wildfire smoke?
First of all, depending on the level of the air quality index where you are, there are different recommendations. When wildfire smoke reaches unhealthy levels, stay indoors as much as possible, with doors and windows shut to keep the wildfire smoke out.
If you have an air cleaner, use it, but check the filter, as filters can fill up quickly. Similarly, check the filter on your home HVAC system and replace it if needed.
If you have to go outside, consider wearing a well-fitting N95, KN95 or KF94 mask. These masks can protect you from inhaling particles in the air around you. Looser masks, such as surgical masks, mostly protect others from what you breathe out instead. They do not have a tight seal around your mouth, and when you breathe in, the air with all of the particles can find its way around the sides of the mask.
Having a tight fit of the mask to your face is important so that when you breathe, the air is going through the mask and capturing the smoke particles rather than letting them into your body where they cause harm.
If your home is leaky and you can see haze inside, consider going to a public space, such as a library or mall, with a good HVAC system. Some municipalities have designated clean air spaces where anyone can go.
We came across this tribute to Ella the other day and I wanted to include a YouTube link (above).
She was born in 1917 and died in June, 1996.
Here is a summary of her life, courtesy of a Google search.
Ella Jane Fitzgerald was an American jazz singer, composer, and songwriter who is often called the “First Lady of Song”. Known for her rhythmic sense, intonation, and scat singing, Fitzgerald was the first African-American woman to win a Grammy and the first woman to win multiple Grammys. She won 13 Grammys in total and sold more than 40 million albums. Fitzgerald’s career was marked by her determination to break down societal barriers.
I love what Penny writes, and here is another of her guest posts.
ooOOoo
For new pet boarding owners and first-time pet care entrepreneurship hopefuls, a pet daycare business startup can feel like the perfect way to turn a love of animals into steady, local work. The real tension is that caring for pets professionally means balancing joy with responsibility, and getting clear on what families in the local pet service market actually need. Community pet care needs can look very different from one neighborhood to the next, and the wrong assumptions can lead to stress for pets, disappointed clients, and a business that never finds its footing. With the right foundation, a caring idea can become a service people trust.
Understanding What Builds Trust in Pet Care
At its core, a successful boarding and daycare business is a promise: safe care, clear routines, and honest communication. A pet boarding services overview clarifies what you offer, while daycare facility requirements spell out what your space must support, from safe separation to clean airflow. Animal welfare standards set the non-negotiables that protect pets and guide daily decisions.
This matters because families are not buying a kennel run, they are buying peace of mind. With 94 million U.S. households now own a pet, trust is what turns first-time clients into regulars. Clear standards also reduce incidents, staff burnout, and stressful handoffs. Think of it like a child daycare check-in. Parents relax when the rules are consistent, the facility feels secure, and safety steps are visible. Pet parents respond the same way when your policies and setup match your care claims.
Build Business Skills That Make Your Pet Care Idea Profitable
When you understand what earns trust, the next step is building the business know-how that helps more local pet parents find you, and stick with you. If you want a more structured way to sharpen your planning and promotion skills, going back to school for a business degree can be a practical move while you develop your pet boarding or daycare idea. Whether you earn a degree in marketing, business, communications, or management, you can learn skills that can help your business thrive.
And because online degree programs are designed for flexibility, it can be easier to run your business while going to school at the same time. If you’d like to explore a guided option, you can look into an accredited online business program while you keep moving your plans forward. With your skills and support lined up, you’re ready to follow a step-by-step launch plan to bring your pet care business to life in your community.
From Idea to Opening Day: Your Launch Checklist
This quick launch path helps you cover the unglamorous essentials (legal, safety, staffing, marketing, and money) so you can open with confidence and avoid costly do-overs.
Confirm your services and business setup Start by choosing your exact offer: daycare only, overnight boarding, add-ons (baths, pickups), and your ideal pet size and temperament. Then pick a simple business structure and name, and open a separate business bank account so your income and expenses stay easy to track.
Handle licensing and basic policies early Call your city or county to ask what approvals apply to animal care businesses, including zoning, permits, and any inspections that affect where you can operate. Write plain-language policies now (hours, drop-off rules, behavior standards, vaccination requirements) so every customer gets the same expectations.
Set up a safe, low-stress facility flow Design your space around safety and calm: separate areas for small and large dogs, clear entry and exit paths, secure gates, and easy-to-clean surfaces. Build your care routine around pet comfort too, since a consistent diet can reduce tummy troubles and help pets settle faster.
Hire, train, and schedule for reliability Start small with dependable coverage for peak times, then add staff as demand grows. Train everyone on handling basics (leash control, safe group play, cleaning routines, incident reporting), and use checklists so care stays consistent even on busy days.
Create a simple budget and local marketing plan List your monthly must-pays (rent, utilities, payroll, cleaning supplies, software) and one-time setup costs (build-out, crates, fencing, signage), then set pricing to cover those with room for slow weeks. Promote locally with a polished Google Business Profile, partnerships with vets and groomers, and a “first visit” offer that encourages trial bookings.
Pet Boarding and Daycare Questions, Answered
Q: What insurance do I actually need to open? A: Start with general liability and animal bailee or care, custody, and control coverage for injuries, escapes, or property damage. Many owners also add workers’ comp if they hire staff and commercial auto if they offer pickups. Ask a broker for a pet-care specific quote and confirm exclusions in writing.
Q: How strict should my vaccination and health policy be? A: Clear rules protect pets, your staff, and your reputation. Require proof of core vaccines, parasite prevention, and a symptom-free check at drop-off, plus a plan for isolating cough, vomiting, or diarrhea. Put your policy in plain language and enforce it consistently.
Q: What should I do if a pet gets sick or injured on my watch? A: Get written owner permission for emergency care, a preferred vet, and a spending limit before the first stay. Train staff to document symptoms, call the owner fast, and transport safely if needed. Keep a stocked first-aid kit and a simple incident report form.
Q: How do I set prices without guessing? A: A pricing strategy helps you set prices based on costs, demand, and the add-ons you offer. Calculate your true daily cost per pet, then compare local competitors and adjust for your hours, staffing ratio, and facility quality. Test packages and a small peak-day surcharge instead of constant price changes.
Q: What regulations tend to surprise new owners? A:Zoning, noise rules, waste disposal, fire safety, and occupancy limits can affect your layout and capacity. Call your city or county early and ask what permits, inspections, and signage rules apply to animal care businesses. Getting clarity up front prevents expensive remodels later.
Turning Pet Care Passion Into a Reliable Local Business
Starting a pet boarding and daycare business can feel like balancing big heart with real-world rules, costs, and what-ifs. The steadier path is a simple mindset: build trust through clear standards, thoughtful planning, and consistent care, then improve one decision at a time as you grow. When that approach guides the launch, entrepreneurial motivation turns into confidence, startup challenges become manageable checkpoints, and long-term business growth starts to look realistic. A successful pet care business is built on clear policies, calm systems, and genuine care.
ooOOoo
As an ex-entrepreneur, a very ‘ex’ by the way, I can support that last sentence. As well as the three items of a successful business, I would add that, above all, there has to be an identified need for the business, and it helps enormously if the person, starting the pet business, is a salesperson.
Because the key role of a salesperson is to listen: to your potential customers, to whosoever will be your competitors, and through discussion with key people in your line of business.
A post by George Monbiot on the 9th July explains.
I looked up quotations about government, and this one caught my eye: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” — Thomas Paine.
Here is that post by George, republished with his permission.
ooOOoo
In Deep
Posted on 9th July 2026
The numbers are simply mind-blowing: up to £264 billion for a climate “solution” that will increase emissions. Has the government lost its mind?
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 8th July 2026
The new prime minister will be looking for money? Well, here’s £21.7bn lying on the ground. The government could cancel its deranged, disastrous carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme at no cost to public welfare: in fact, it would greatly reduce the harm we will suffer.
Yes, £264bn. More than a quarter of a trillion. This cost will be divided between the public and private sectors. Given the record of CCS programmes so far, we can expect the public to carry most of it.
An investigation by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee found that roughly 25% of the public costs of CCS will be borne directly by the government, while the remainder will come from extra levies on our energy bills. The government should explain to the electorate that it intends to slap up to £198bn on our bills. Then see how that lands.
Even this might not be the end of it. Buried in an arcane side document is a government commitment to pay a “premium” for the hydrogen produced by the CCS programme for 15 years. This commitment is uncosted, but could run to tens of billions more.
But surely CCS is essential for cutting carbon emissions? That’s how the government has pitched it. On the contrary, this programme will massively increase them. The Climate Change Committee claims that the role of CCS is “limited to sectors where there are few, or no, alternatives”. But this is simply untrue. Its own data shows that only between 5% and 6% of the CCS deployment in the UK will be used to address the emissions of industrial sectors such as chemicals and cement, whose impact is hard to abate (though even here there are partial alternatives).
The great majority of CCS will be attached to new fossil fuel-burning power stations, wood-burning power stations and hydrogen production from fossil gas. In fact, almost all the projects in the government’s first tranche are for fossil fuel-based schemes. But there are abundant alternatives to these highly destructive plans. Given the speed at which battery technology is evolving, enabling a balanced and reliable electricity supply without any use of fossil fuels, the committee’s claim is bunkum.
Its insistence that we need hydrogen made from fossil gas is also baseless. Its own figures show that producing hydrogen from gas with CCS will cost twice as much by 2050 as producing it from the electrolysis of water, using renewable electricity.
The new CCS plants will mean massively more gas use than the UK would otherwise have required. Ultimately, that means more imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). We now know that, thanks to methane leakage along the production and transport chain, LNG has higher emissions than coal. Two-thirds of its greenhouse impact occurs before the gas arrives in this country. So that’s all right then – it doesn’t count towards our national figures.
If the real aim were to cut emissions, we would push fossil fuel use in the electricity sector down to zero, and scale up renewables and battery storage instead. The net effect? Much lower climate impacts and much lower bills. Instead, the programme will greatly ramp up both. Why?
Well, the whole thing has been built the wrong way round. It appears likely to be the result of massive lobbying by fossil fuel companies. In 2023 alone, as the key decision on deployment loomed, the oil companies Equinor, BP and ExxonMobil attended 24 meetings with Conservative ministers to discuss CCS. Why? Because they know it’s the only way they will be permitted to keep burning gas. Governments have sought to find a way of meeting their demands while adhering to the climate budgets, so lo, a £264bn white elephant is born. As the Climate Change Committee admits, “gas with CCS accounts for around half of the remaining demand for fossil fuels in 2050” in the UK. In other words, this is their lifeline.
And now we know something else: that the scientific credibility of CCS as a climate solution was shaped by the oil company BP. Investigative work by ProPublica and Drilled discovered that BP both financed and helped steer one of the most famous of all climate papers. The “Wedges” paper, published in 2004, became a foundation of government policy around the world. It purported to show how climate stabilisation was compatible with continued fossil use. And one of the major policies its plan relied on was carbon capture and storage.
BP’s chief executive suggested the “wedges” concept. Another BP executive was so heavily involved that the scientists suggested he should be named as co-author. He declined: the industry tries not to leave fingerprints. The paper greatly oversold CCS, presenting it as “already deployed at an industrial scale”. In reality, it had barely been tested. Yet it underpinned three of the 15 climate actions the paper proposed.
But success is not the point. The point is to provide a gigantic, publicly-funded reason for the fossil fuel industry to stay in business. Guess who the lead operator of the government’s first CCS cluster is. Hello, BP.
So we come round full circle. From cradle to grave, this programme appeases the world’s most antisocial and destructive sector. The wasted money, the lost years, the lost lives: for how much longer will this farce continue? And how many more warnings will the government ignore?
I am towards the end of my days, and we live a pretty frugal (as in use of fossil fuels) life.
However, that does not mean that I am not very concerned about George’s essay. I have a son, a daughter, and a grandson. They are a tangible group who will be affected by this proposed legislation. As will millions of other people.
I really hope, and this is truly meant, that the UK Government does not push ahead with this Act.
Saying ‘no’ is difficult. This is an article from The Conversation that talks of our need at times to be the opposite of friendly, to stand one’s ground, and to be true to yourself.
ooOOoo
The science of defiance: A psychology researcher explains why people comply – and how to resist
You’re in a meeting when your boss suggests changing a number to make the quarterly report look stronger. Heads nod. The slides move on. You feel a knot in your stomach: Do you speak up and risk being branded difficult, or stay silent and become complicit?
Most people picture defiance as dramatic outbursts. In reality, it’s often these small, tense moments where conscience collides with compliance.
I first saw the power of defiance not in the workplace, but closer to home. My mother was the ultimate people-pleaser: timid, polite, eager to accommodate. Barely 4 feet, 10 inches tall, she put everyone else’s needs above her own. But one day, when I was 7, I saw a different side to her.
We were walking home from the grocery store in West Yorkshire, England, when a group of teenage boys blocked our path in a narrow alleyway. They hurled racist insults and told us to “go back home.”
My reaction was instantaneous: Stay quiet, avoid conflict and get past them as quickly as possible. I grabbed my mother’s arm, urging her to move with me. But she didn’t. My quiet, deferential, never-confrontational mother did something completely different. She stopped, turned and looked the boys directly in the eyes. Then she asked, calmly but firmly, “What do you mean?”
She wasn’t loud or aggressive. And in that moment, she showed me that defiance doesn’t always roar, and it can come from the people you least expect.
I’ve carried these lessons into my work as a physician-turned-organizational psychologist. For decades, I’ve studied why people comply, staying silent when they don’t want to, and how they can resist wisely. In my book “Defy: The Power of No in a World that Demands Yes,” I offer a framework based on behavioral science research that can help you defy in ways that are intentional, effective and true to your values.
When people think of defiance, they often picture teenagers slamming doors, protesters shouting in the streets or rebels breaking rules just for the thrill of it. But that’s not the kind of defiance I study or the kind that shapes our lives most often.
That pressure can come from anywhere: a boss urging you to fudge the numbers, a friend nudging you toward something you don’t believe in, a culture telling you to stay in your place. Defiance in those moments might be as small as saying “no,” asking for clarification or simply pausing instead of rushing along with the group. Other times, it means speaking up, challenging authority or maybe walking away.
Seen this way, defiance isn’t a fixed trait that some people are born with and others lack. It’s a practice: a skill you can strengthen over time. Some days you might comply, other days you might resist. What matters is that you have the awareness and the tools to make the choice consciously, rather than letting fear or habit decide for you.
Why people comply
If defiance is so important, why do people so often stay silent?
One reason is a psychological process I’ve uncovered in my research: insinuation anxiety. It arises when people worry that not complying with another person’s wishes may be interpreted as a signal of distrust. Turning down a boss’s request to “adjust” the numbers might feel like you’re implying they’re dishonest. To avoid that discomfort, you go along – even when it violates your values.
Behavioral science has long documented this pull toward compliance. In the 1960s, for example, psychologist Stanley Milgram showed that ordinary people would administer what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to strangers simply because an authority figure told them to.
My own research has shown surprisingly high levels of compliance with obviously bad advice, even when given by a stranger with no consequences for disagreeing. People feel immense social pressure to go along with what others suggest. That’s because if you’ve never been trained in how to say no, it feels uncomfortable and awkward.
A framework for action
If compliance is the human default, how can you build the muscle of defiance? In my research, I’ve developed a simple actionable guide that I call the Defiance Compass. Like a navigation aid, it orients you in difficult situations by asking three questions:
Who am I? What are the core values that matter most to me?
What type of situation is this? Is it safe to resist? Will it have a positive impact?
What does a person like me do in a situation like this? How can I take responsibility and act in a way that’s consistent with my identity and values?
Three questions can help you zero in on whether the time is right for you to defy. Sunita Sah
Asking these questions shifts defiance from a gut reaction to a conscious practice. And here’s what’s important: That third question (“What does a person like me do?”) circles back to the first (“Who am I?”), because how you act again and again becomes who you are.
Defiance doesn’t always mean open confrontation. Sometimes it means asking a clarifying question, buying time or quietly refusing. It can mean speaking up or walking away. The key is to start small, practice regularly and anchor your choices in your values. Like any skill, the more you practice, the more natural it becomes.
Why defiance matters now
Defiance may be risky, but it’s never been more relevant. At work, employees are pressured to meet targets at any cost. In politics, citizens face waves of misinformation and polarization. In everyday life, people struggle to set healthy boundaries. Across all these contexts, the temptation to comply for the sake of comfort is strong.
Of course, not every act of defiance is safe or guaranteed to make a difference. Sometimes it comes at real personal cost and some people still choose to act even when the impact isn’t certain: think of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat, or Colin Kaepernick taking a knee. In those moments, the act itself becomes the message. Both of those individuals were deeply connected to their values and the assessment is personal: What feels worth the risk to one person might not to another.
Defiance does require practice: noticing when values are at stake, pausing before you nod along, and choosing actions that align with who you want to be. Each act of consent, compliance or defiance shapes not just your story but the stories of our societies.
If you practice defiance, and teach it and model it, you can imagine a different type of society. You can start to envision a world where, in that same alleyway from my childhood, one of the boys will step forward and tell his friends, “That’s not OK. Let them pass.”
Across the range of society there will always be persons who choose to act with poor social values. Some are very senior, such as many politicians, some are towards the bottom of society. That is a fact of life.
Sunita Sah does us proud in writing this article, and I am delighted to republish it, with the permission of The Conversation.
A few days ago I asked our neighbours to the south of us if they would like to come out on July 4th. The answer was thanks but no. Fireworks and dry forest do not mix and they wanted to stay home for the day.
I write this as an introduction to the latest post from The Conversation.
ooOOoo
Fireworks, heat and drought put this July 4th at high risk for wildfires
Across the United States, the sky will be erupting with fireworks on July 4, 2026, and the days around it as America celebrates the 250th anniversary of its independence. Many cities will be hosting spectacular fireworks shows.
But not everyone will be leaving the pyrotechnics to the professionals, so let’s talk about the risk of fireworks starting fires, including dangerous wildfires.
In 2026, much of the U.S. has been very dry and in moderate to severe drought. That means many areas are at high risk for fires igniting and spreading.
Dry start to the year
In the first half of the year, the U.S. has already experienced more wildfires than in the first half of any of the previous 10 years, which has included some of the country’s worst fire years on record.
At the same time, large parts of the U.S. West and Southeast are forecast to see above-normal heat along with dryness through early July. Heat waves significantly raise the fire risk. A recent study found that 42% of all land burned in the West from 2001 to 2024 happened during or right after a heat wave.
4th of July fireworks
In hot, dry conditions it doesn’t take much to start a fire. Dry vegetation – trees, shrubs and grasses – provides the fuel. A windy day can substantially raise the risk of a runaway fire. The spark often comes from human activities, whether a car, power line or someone lighting fireworks.
Between 1992 and 2015, humans started 97% of all fires that threatened homes in the wildland-urban interface, the areas where homes and cities overlap with wildlands.
In many states and drought-plagued regions, commercial fireworks are banned for community safety, and not just because of the fire risk. Emergency rooms saw an estimated 9,700 fireworks-related injuries in 2023 – injuries to hands, faces, ears and elsewhere – a third of them involving children.
The National Fire Protection Association encourages everyone to leave the fireworks to the professionals who are prepared to manage any wayward sparks. Public displays are cheaper for you, safer for everyone, and often far more spectacular.
I had little idea about dopamine, and I suspect that I’m not the only person.
Luckily, there are a number of medical websites that describe the role of dopamine in some details.
First, a small part of an AI report based on information from HealthDirect
Dopamine is a critical neurotransmitter and hormone that acts as the brain’s chemical messenger, playing a central role in motivation, reward-motivated behavior, pleasure, and motor control.
Second, part of an explanation from Cleveland Clinic.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter made in your brain. It plays a role as a “reward center” and in many body functions, including memory, movement, motivation, mood, attention and more. High or low dopamine levels are associated with diseases including Parkinson’s disease, restless legs syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Third, Psychology Today reports.
Dopamine is known as the feel-good neurotransmitter—a chemical that ferries information between neurons. The brain releases it when we eat food that we crave or while we have sex, contributing to feelings of pleasure and satisfaction as part of the reward system. This important neurochemical boosts mood, motivation, and attention, and helps regulate movement, learning, and emotional responses.
How does dopamine make you feel?
Dopamine causes you to want, desire, seek out, and search. It increases your general level of arousal and your goal-directed behavior. Dopamine makes you curious about ideas and fuels your search for information. Dopamine creates reward-seeking loops in the sense that people will repeat pleasurable behavior, from checking Instagram to taking drugs.
Swedish pharmacologist and neuroscientist Arvid Carlsson won the Nobel prize in 2000 for his research on dopamine, showing its importance in brain function. He helped show that the neurotransmitter is heavily involved in the motor system. When the brain fails to produce enough dopamine, it can result in Parkinson’s disease. The primary treatment for Parkinson’s disease is a drug called L-dopa, which spurs the production of dopamine.
Dopamine has also been implicated in schizophrenia and ADHD; the brain systems underlying these conditions (as well as substance abuse disorder) are complex. The activity of the dopamine system depends on the state of one’s dopamine receptors, and in people with these conditions, the chemical interacts with other factors in ways that have yet to be explained.
How does dopamine function in the brain?
It is no exaggeration to say that dopamine makes us human. Beginning in infant development, dopamine levels are critical, and mental disabilities can arise if dopamine is not present in sufficient quantities. Dopamine is implicated in genetic conditions like congenital hypothyroidism. Dopamine deficiency is also implicated in other conditions such as Alzheimer’s, depressive disorders, binge-eating, addiction, and gambling.
ooOOoo
My darling Jean takes Carbidopa-Levodopa four times a day and has been doing so for many years.
As one can see from the above extracts, dopamine is incredibly important for the human brain.
Learning from Dogs 