A catastrophic fire ripped through a vast housing estate in Hong Kong, killing at least 94 people and leaving dozens unaccounted for in what authorities say is the city’s deadliest disaster in decades. The blaze tore through multiple towers in the Wang Fuk Court complex in Tai Po, where many of the more than 4,000 residents were older adults.
Several apartments continued burning into early Friday morning, more than a full day after flames first erupted. Emergency crews said extreme heat inside the buildings delayed rescue attempts and prevented firefighters from reaching people trapped on higher floors. A man was pulled alive from the 16th story on Thursday, according to public broadcaster RTHK, but many others remain missing.
The cause of the fire is under investigation. The complex was undergoing renovation and wrapped in bamboo scaffolding and safety netting, a common construction practice in Hong Kong. Officials are examining whether flammable materials, including polystyrene panels blocking windows in several units, fueled the spread of the blaze.
Authorities said at least seven of the estate’s eight residential blocks were affected. Firefighters confronted simultaneous multi story fires after scaffolding at the first building ignited and flames leapt from tower to tower. More than 800 fire personnel, 128 trucks and 57 ambulances were deployed.
Derek Armstrong Chan, deputy director of the Hong Kong Fire Services, said rescue efforts took “longer than expected” because the inferno was “much worse” than crews initially believed. By early Thursday morning, fires in three buildings had been extinguished, but scattered flames remained in others.
Police arrested three men on suspicion of “gross negligence” after investigators traced flammable polystyrene boards found at the scene to a construction company. Fire Services Director Andy Yeung said the discovery was “unusual,” adding that the materials were “extremely inflammable.”
The blaze has devastated the community. Officials confirmed that among the dead was a 37 year old firefighter, Ho Wai ho, who succumbed to injuries sustained while battling the flames. More than 100 people were injured, including at least 11 firefighters.
Hundreds of residents are now displaced in a city where housing shortages are already severe. Chief Executive John Lee announced that each affected household will receive 10,000 Hong Kong dollars, and the government will assign “one social worker per household” to support survivors.
“I don’t doubt many elderly, cats and dogs are still in there,” said a resident surnamed Ho, who fled his apartment immediately after hearing the fire alarm.
The scale of the tragedy has raised urgent questions about building safety, renovation oversight and Hong Kong’s longstanding reliance on bamboo scaffolding. While the technique is deeply rooted in local culture, experts have increasingly warned about its combustibility and durability. In March, Hong Kong’s Development Bureau said half of new public projects must use metal scaffolding to align with standards in “advanced cities,” prompting backlash from some residents who view bamboo scaffolding as cultural heritage.
The disaster has also placed political pressure on both local and mainland authorities. Hong Kong operates under a semi autonomous system but has come under tighter control from Beijing since 2019, when pro democracy protests swept the city. Chinese leader Xi Jinping expressed condolences and called for “all out efforts” to reduce casualties and losses.
Lee said he was “saddened” by the scale of the tragedy, offering “deep condolences to the families of the deceased and those who were injured.”
The fire is likely the deadliest in Hong Kong since World War II and has shocked a city known for strict building codes and a strong safety record. Investigators are now working to determine how a blaze in one tower escalated into a multi building catastrophe that engulfed a community in minutes.
The Italian Engineering & Construction company positions itself at the center of the European steel transition with new contracts for zero-emission plants.
The global steel industry is at a turning point. Decarbonization is no longer an option but a strategic necessity that is reshaping the entire sector. In this highly innovative scenario, an Italian company, OM Siderurgica, is positioning itself as a key engineering partner for the transition.
The company, specializing in the Engineering & Construction of material handling systems for steel mills, recently announced the acquisition of contracts worth over 10 million euros linked to the global “Green Steel” transformation program. These projects—which include feeding systems for CDRI (Cold Direct Reduced Iron), ferro-alloys, and additives in the primary EAF (Electric Arc Furnace) in Germany, large-scale conveyor lines in Sweden, and new slag treatment plants in Italy—mark a decisive step for the company into the heart of the new sustainable steel industry.
An Engineering Legacy Projected into the Future
Founded on know-how that dates back to 1964, OM Siderurgica has established itself as a benchmark in the design and supply of “turnkey” plants. Although steelmaking remains its primary market, the company also operates successfully in the mining, cement, glass, food, chemical, and recycling sectors.
The company’s strength, as shown in its company profile, lies in its ability to combine solid professionalism with highly efficient equipment, managing the entire supply chain: from design and installation to start-up and after-sales service.
The Vision of CEO, Pierluigi Tomasi
To understand this strategic evolution, we spoke with the CEO of OM Siderurgica, Engineer Pierluigi Tomasi.
Mr. Tomasi, OM Siderurgica has a long history. How has the company evolved to meet today’s sustainability challenges and position itself as a partner for the green transition?
“The sensitivity to move towards more environmentally friendly products, even in steelmaking, in addition to following a general direction set by the European Community in the last decade, is based on our long-standing presence in different industrial fields, such as food, chemical, or mining, where these concerns were already mandatory since the last century. Therefore, the acceleration required by the steel industry found us ready and culturally prepared. This applies to both material handling and our dedusting and fume abatement systems”.
At the Center of the “Green Steel” Transformation
The focus is clear: the present and future of OM Siderurgica are linked to the green transition. The steel industry is responsible for a significant share of global CO2 emissions, and the push for carbon neutrality is leading to the replacement of traditional coal-fired steel mills with plants powered by hydrogen or based on Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) using pre-reduced raw materials (like DRI).
This is where OM Siderurgica’s expertise becomes crucial. The company designs and builds the complex handling and feeding systems necessary for these new production processes, which demand a different level of precision and technological reliability compared to traditional plants.
The company has secured significant contracts. Can you describe the specific role OM Siderurgica plays in facilitating low-impact steel production?
“Our role is that of recognized specialists, capable of ensuring the distribution and feeding of the mineral, DRI, and HBI mixes required for the casting of new Green technologies with absolute precision, both in volume and weight. This means being involved by our partners in the necessary engineering teams two or three years before supply and installation.
After this phase, the process moves on to the supply of absolutely reliable and heavy-duty machines and plants, complete with automation capable of following the rhythms dictated by the project’s casting cycle like clockwork, without ever deviating from the strict tolerances of the recipes that the new technologies require.
It also means ensuring zero material loss in the complex feeding routes, using techniques for both bulk material transport and fine powders for direct injection into the furnace via pressurized lances. At the same time, controlling dust dispersion from transport with our abatement technologies, even in Atex environments, therefore with varying degrees of explosiveness or hazard. All this, while optimizing the total installed electrical power, thanks to both the high energy efficiency of our solutions and the advantages of smarter automation”.
Circular Economy: Turning Waste into Resources
For OM Siderurgica, sustainability doesn’t stop at reducing emissions. A fundamental pillar of its technological offering is the treatment of slag, an unavoidable by-product of the steelmaking process. Following a “Zero Waste” philosophy, the company designs plants that transform what was once costly waste into a resource.
Through crushing, screening, and magnetic separation processes, OM plants recover the valuable ferrous component to be reintroduced into the production cycle. The remaining inert material is valorized as high-quality aggregate for bituminous conglomerates, cement, or road subgrades.
Beyond emissions, steelmaking generates tons of slag. How central is the circular economy to your business model?
“The circular economy linked to slag recycling is definitely the most important heritage of our long history. OM, born in the 60s, developed, especially in its first 30 years, a very complete Know How in the extraction and processing of natural aggregates. The move into Steelmaking and the other sectors where we are active today began in the 80s, but OM’s technology for crushing, separation, screening, and washing of inert materials has never stopped.
Therefore, for about two decades, a large part of this DNA has been applied to the processing, I would say ‘ennobling’, of artificial aggregates produced as slag from steel plants, obviously with greater attention to the chemical-physical characteristics and the environmental risks involved. These are plants we supply on a turnkey basis, and they include all necessary phases, up to the training of end-users and/or support during their first months of production”.
Innovation in the DNA: From 3D Plants to Pneumatic Systems
To manage projects of this complexity, OM Siderurgica‘s technical office has been operating for decades with the most modern engineering systems, as seen, for example, in this 3D Material Handling System Plant.
The company has developed specific technologies for every need of the production cycle, including pneumatic conveying systems (for powdery materials, essential for environmental control) and complete dedusting plants. This approach, combined with a solid organizational structure and forecasts for revenue growth, positions the company as a solid actor ready for future challenges.
Looking to the future, what are the next technological frontiers for OM Siderurgica?
“In the last five years, our engineering investments and technological developments have primarily focused on new steel mills in Europe and the United States that had the advantage of being ‘born from Zero’ with all specifications for low-emission final production, and therefore where the Vision was clear from the beginning and not hindered by potential compromises. An ideal situation from an engineering and budget perspective. These have always been large new settlements.
But these new productions will not be sufficient to meet global steel demand before they are all completed and operational, so for at least the next ten years they will continue to coexist with the old generation steel mills. I believe our task is to intervene in the most sustainable way possible in these old plants as well, introducing, with a revamping philosophy, all or many of the new solutions designed for ‘Green Steel’ plants. And this, believe me, will be the real challenge due to the difficulties of adapting existing systems.
We hope that policymakers will support these efforts by smaller or at-risk-of-obsolescence steel mills with appropriate economic support (bonuses) for the sector. Also because converting new virgin land into new industrial poles would be a very ‘Gray’ Green”.
The global push for “Green Steel” is not just about furnace chemistry; it’s about the entire infrastructure that feeds them. As major producers invest billions to move away from coal, the technological challenge shifts to internal logistics: handling new materials like DRI and managing slag in a circular way. It is in this complex engineering arena, and its integration with new production processes, that the real game for the future of sustainable steel will be played.
President Donald Trump’s warm welcome for New York City Mayor elect Zohran Mamdani at the White House last week left analysts debating the meaning behind the unusually cordial exchange. To longtime observers of Trump, the interaction reflected the president’s instinctive embrace of charismatic figures. Others saw a moment that bridged political divides or simply a meeting between two men from Queens. But for many South Asians, the encounter revealed something more familiar.
They recognized an immigrant son of the Indian diaspora relying on a deeply ingrained skill that surfaces in tense exchanges with paternalistic elders. The Times of India captured that sentiment, noting that “Desis have found Mamdani’s polite smile, respectful head tilt and general mollifying of Trump kick in a very particular muscle memory.” Journalist Kedar Gadgil echoed that view, writing on LinkedIn that it reflected “the desi art of letting the elder talk while quietly keeping the steering wheel of our own intent.”
Actor and singer Yamuna Meleth said the moment illustrated “Desi training,” describing how children of immigrants learn to blend respect with quiet defiance. CNN reached out to Mamdani’s team for comment, but regardless of whether his demeanor was rooted in upbringing, preparation or timing, South Asian viewers saw something unmistakable in his reserved smile and measured tone.
Meleth compared Mamdani’s approach to enduring unsolicited advice from aunties and uncles while learning to let comments “go in one ear and out the other.” The key, she said, is “letting them gas you up and to let them think that they have something to do with your success.”
During the meeting, Mamdani deflected questions designed to highlight his differences with Trump. When asked if New York City loved the president, he shifted the focus to affordability while acknowledging voter frustration over the cost of living. Trump appeared pleased, telling reporters, “Some of his ideas really are the same ideas that I have,” and later adding, “I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do a great job.”
Mamdani faced criticism from some on the left for engaging with Trump, but others praised his ability to ease tensions without ceding ground. Supporters argued that he undercut attempts to brand him as a “communist jihadist” and helped temper speculation about potential National Guard deployment to the city.
Gadgil likened Mamdani’s approach to a dance that South Asians master with experience. “Eventually you start leading without the other person realizing that you were following just a moment ago,” he said. Therapist Afshana Haque noted that his strategy mirrored how many navigate intrusive questions from elders about marriage or career choices while remaining polite. She said such moments require considerable emotional energy but can also be powerful tools for operating across cultures.
The contrast with Trump’s confrontational meetings with other leaders was striking. His February session with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky devolved into a shouting match, while an encounter with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa ended with false accusations. Some analysts argue that Trump’s upbeat tone with Mamdani reflected political self interest at that moment.
Still, for many South Asians, Mamdani’s approach felt deeply recognizable. They saw a practiced skill at work, one that blended cultural nuance, restraint and strategic communication in a way that kept the conversation steady while leaving Trump believing he was leading it.
Is going to war a biological necessity in order to pursue feuds against those whom we dislike? Or could it just be a regrettable invention imposed by sociological inevitability? Will there ever be an end to all wars? Joseph Mazur explores the issues around these difficult questions.
When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
And broils root out the work of masonry,
Nor Mars his sword nor war’s quick fire shall burn
The living record of your memory.
– William Shakespeare: Excerpt from “Not marble nor the gilded monuments” (Sonnet 55)
Why do we think the world is in a bleak and dark place? If we study war, we should know that from the time of the Trojan War (yes, there was a nonfictional war going at or near the time when Homer wrote an epic poem about a violent war including gods, victims. and victors) to the end of the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century, the world has never been as peaceful is it is today. Hey, you say, what about the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan? They are so bloody and cruel. Those are wars we know from a wide range of media outlets that highlight those wars. Yes, they are brutal and ugly. They are wars we watch in real time and, by watching, we feel uncomfortable because we are seeing our own species killing our own species. And there are plenty of ongoing armed conflicts to choose from – 48 and counting. But when we assess the long historical list of wars, we find that the number of deaths from combat is enormous compared with those that are ongoing today. Though the numbers are high, the number killed in wars and conflicts is continuously dropping. When the number of civilian deaths from three wars in this century has passed 71,200 in Gaza, over 13,883 in Ukraine, and over 3,384 in Darfur, we sense those numbers to be high; however, compared to wars before 1945, they are not.[1] They are far too high for this century, a century that brings us together through instant human communication connections. At the dawn of this century, humans have come closer to each other than ever before. Besides witnessing live news reports from battlefields that make us numb to killing, there are also concerns about high death numbers, since we are far more attached to each other than we have been for centuries. Though our geographical coordinates are far apart, our online news, music, film, and information communication connections are closer than ever.
Though the numbers are high, the number killed in wars and conflicts is continuously dropping.
Something happened after the deaths of Hitler and Stalin that turned the world out of the darkness of brutal violence in war and peace into a bright possibility that rational nations – at least in the most highly developed countries – are shifting from being barbarous to humane, not fully humane but at least more humane than ever before. The present constant daily news shows widespread suffering and deaths from homicides, explosions, political nastiness, and the gruesome pictures of wars, so we tend to think the world is shifting from being humane to barbarous. When we study the history of barbarism from ancient human societies to the present day, we begin to see how far we have come from slavery, pogroms, lynchings, human sacrifice, death penalties, execution by torture, genocide, known political assassinations, confrontations with human rights violations, and war brutality. Er… hold on… we still have slavery and human trafficking, but none sanctioned as they were before by responsible governments. All those horrors of humanity that shaped the history of our existence are now publicly and governmentally condemned, at least by the advanced countries, even those under authoritarian rule.
According to Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University, “Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth.” [2] He began his article in the New Republic in 2007 with an example of how far we have come from the sadism of the 16th century, when cat burning was a popular form of entertainment in Paris. He quotes the British and Polish historian Norman Davies, saying, “[T]he spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized.” We don’t do cat-burning anymore in advanced countries, and it would be unthinkable in most of the world, at least not with kings and queens laughing at roasting felines.
The word “probably” is used by Pinker to pitch a moment of acceptance to his point. It may be misleading, because the number of wars is now close to 48, higher than ever, because weapons can be quickly and easily sold and shipped to almost any group with purchasing power. The number of wars does not translate into the number of violent actions nor the number of deaths. We kill in large numbers, yes, but those numbers do not compete with the history of war-related deaths, century by century. The decline of violence over long stretches of history is valid when we consider the pre-World War II long list of wars and violent actions; however, numerous counter-studies disagree and call Pinker’s view an exaggeration. [3]
Pinker’s article was published 18 years ago, since when much has changed. Still, think of the violence and discord that our parents and grandparents lived through in the past century – world hunger during the great depression, violent race- and religion-inspired segregations, the damaged reputations caused under McCarthyism (such as my father’s), and a world war that was responsible for an estimated 70 to 85 million deaths (not counting the Korean and Vietnam Wars).
Approximate World Totals from 1939 – 1945
Go back one more century, and war violence is not much better. Approximately 37- 45 million people died fighting in wars, not including civilians. [4] There is no accuracy for these numbers, but given a million more or less, it is an indication that past wars had high death numbers.
Wars of the 19th Century Jason Lyall, “Project Mars”[5]With these numbers that we see before us, we must ask the question: who are we as humans who didn’t mind burning cats in the 16th century, and yet we now kill our own species without physically seeing who we kill? In the 17th century, 5 to 8 million people died during the Thirty Years’ War from starvation and disease. It is impossible to compare past or future wars to the atrocities of the 18th century, when death numbers were astounding for civilians because of the slave trade and revolutionary wars. Several million Africans died in transport. Add the slave trade to the casualties attributed to the American and French revolutionary wars, the many wars of succession and insurrections, and the number of deaths for that century appears to be close to 18 million. By such casualty numbers, we must wonder who we are and why we are so vicious.
Who are we and where did we come from?
I saw them behaving in… dark, aggressive, brutal ways, even a kind of primitive war. Therefore, I believe that aggression is innate. And we’re born with a tendency to become aggressive, just as chimps are. Chimps see a stranger from a neighboring community, and they get all excited, and their hair stands out, and they reach out and touch another, and they’ve got these faces of anger and fear, and it catches, and the others catch that feeling that this one male has had, and they all become aggressive. So, it’s contagious.
– Jane Goodall, in Famous Last Words
Who were the creatures behaving in dark, aggressive, brutal ways? Why, chimpanzees, of course. But those chimps share 98.7 per cent of DNA with us, and so, Goodall says, we humans have propensities of aggressive, brutal behavior. Just like chimps, we forcefully protect our territory by fighting. “Well,” she says, “we get, interestingly, two types of alphas. One does it all by aggression. And because they’re strong and they fight, they don’t last very long. Others do it by using their brains, like a young male will only challenge a higher-ranking one if his friend, often his brother, is with him. And… you know, they last much, much longer.” [6]
Human aggressiveness is not a recent swerve from a state of being dovish, though the evidence of chimp behavior is documented in Goodall’s papers. In a previous TWFR article, I included two military historians who agreed with Goodall – William Hovgaard and Friedrich Adams Julius von Bernhardi. Hovgaard was an academic, whereas von Bernhardi was a Prussian general. “War is a biological phenomenon,” Hovgaard wrote, “being part of the struggle for existence common to all organic beings in the wild state of nature.” He saw war as an instinct for control over defending and controlling resources and lands that provide the subjectively best possible living conditions. Von Bernhardi wrote that war “is a biological necessity … the natural law, upon which all the laws of Nature rest, the law of the struggle for existence.” [7] He felt that the primordial impulse would always be with us, along with the good, bad, and acceptable human urges that brought us to this stage of existence. Within the question of biological necessity, though, there would be a group of necessities emanating from points of evolutionary struggle for either survival or ambitions of power that drives the lust for territorial expansions.
The cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead had a different angle. In her article “Warfare Is Only An Invention—Not A Biological Necessity,” she begins by asking the question, “Is war a biological necessity, a sociological inevitability, or just a bad invention?” But soon she answers that war is simply an invention, like “writing, marriage, cooking our food instead of eating it raw, trial by jury or burial of the dead, and so on.” [8] As a cultural anthropologist, she knew so much more clearly than we do that not all cultures bury their dead, and that there are cultures that know no war. Her example is the Inuit, amiable people with no characteristics of warfare aggressiveness, even when they are faced with hunger and threats of annihilation. To take another example, consider the pygmy people, hunters and gatherers of the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean, or Australian Aboriginals who search the desert outback for water holes, wanderers with no permanent homes. Like the Inuit, they are not mild or weak, and though many are troubled and tempestuous, as a culture, they do not fight wars. Yet if we look for wars among indigenous peoples, especially those like the Inuit who in the past owned no land, you might find rare and short defensive wars. Mead brings evidence that war is an invention based on examples witnessed 85 years ago that have significantly changed, but her point remains, for it is timeless. If war is a cultural invention, it has the potential to disappear, to be replaced by alternative inventions in favor of turning armed conflicts into sympathetic, constructive treaties.
Whenever we ask questions about how wars start and end, a new question arises: why is it that every time one war ends, another begins? Some leaders must calculate the odds of the inevitable surrender versus victory and calibrate the cost and price of infrastructure destruction and the morals of killing and wounding. Without expectations, and mistakes that are sometimes uncorrectable or uncontrollable, or plans for closing a war, the planners should plan not to start. That puts the above questions squarely within the moral principles and ethical dilemmas of societal behavior. Now, please do not take that as a naïve position suggesting that leaders balance moral and ethical decisions before going to war.
Whenever we ask questions about how wars start and end, a new question arises: why is it that every time one war ends, another begins?
They should. Some do, but most don’t. Yet some know that the goals of war are to balance arguments with concessions and settlements that bring peace and prosperity to both sides. “Otherwise,” as I wrote in my previous TWFR article, “we will always be at war with one another; of the 195 countries that share the resources of this one planet, some will be winners that eventually become losers, and losers that later become winners in a cycle of power changes that continues until the sun becomes a white dwarf.” [10]
From natural greed to habitual hostility
Is the inevitability of frequent, persistent wars in any way connected to human genetic systems of ambition or a cultural invention? Or is it simply a psychological mind growth that starts from biological survival instincts – acquisition of food or shelter – that move to aggressive tactics for material gain and then to habitual hostility? Acquiring food and shelter emboldens the notion of wealth, and that wealth ultimately emboldens one in the search for power. Along the mind-growth journey, hunting for food turned into growing selfish desires. Some humans take that path; most do not. But soldiers are those with mind growth that turn to serve, and some of them turn to lead. A duke is by ilk, heritage, and position one who needs an army to secure his dukedom, for there are always neighboring princes who never have enough territory or resources to be satisfied. And so, the power grows and, hence, so do armies.
Mead told us that all cultural inventions have evolutionary roots, whether they involve abrasive solutions to conflicts or concessionary resolutions to arguments. That does not mean that some wars are predetermined and inevitable. There are some allies that are so linked to each other that war between them would never be accepted, though “never” is a strong word. Recall that at the turn of the 19th century, many of the sovereigns of 17 European states were cousins and semi-allies, and yet some fought against each other in 1914. It’s hard to imagine the US invading Canada, Denmark invading Norway, or Spain invading Portugal, though any one of those aggressions could happen.
For the answer to the title question, we should know how international wars start. The answer is simple and not so simple: when one nation, in dispute with another, cannot resolve counter-issues through compromises, or detente breaks, war is the answer. The not-so-simple answer is that sometimes disputes are rather ambitious contests of power that do not yield to resolution. Looking back over the centuries, kings, dukes, and mad, overconfident leaders had only bellicose solutions to unsolvable problems. Armed conflicts were their answer. And so, some wars started through psychopathic opportunism and others through a cockiness of previous war achievements. In past centuries, high-ranking soldiers saw advances in war as a social celebration of heroism with a chance of acceptance in nobility; if they survived the battlefield without losing a limb, they could go to formal balls wearing stripes, medals, epaulets, and uniforms of splendid colors to show glory that spurred longing for more wars.
War is a gamble but, unlike chancing games where losers are compelled to gamble again in more risky ways, the suffering of defeat is so destructive that either revenge (as was the case of Germany in 1933 or the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001) brings on another chance at war or one of the parties becomes pacifist (as was the case of Japan after WWII following the dishonor of its defeat).
Accidents and misunderstandings
Aside from the common causes of war, there is the question of miscalculations, misunderstandings, and accidents that arise either on the battlefield or in preparation for armed conflict. Without clear communications with potential enemies, an accident, such as might arise from US and China war-exercises close to the Taiwan Strait, could lead to war.
We are at a crossroads of international law that, for me, brings in an imagined scenario, along with the hope that a US war with a neighboring country will not happen. In February 2025, just a month into his second term in office as president, Donald Trump said, “I’d like to see Canada become our 51st state.” That’s a somewhat benign comment because it will never happen. Trump uses such provocative comments as diversions from the critical news of his catastrophic policies. But then, just a month later, he linked that statement to another: “We need [Greenland] really for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it.” Trump sees only cooperation or conflict. “One way or the other, we’re going to get it.” We have not heard much about that threat lately, likely because he is so busy destroying his own country with tariffs, ending foreign aid, attacking climate science, health security, and foreign aid, deportations of people seeking better lives, autocratic restrictions on free speech, and blundering into a military action against neighbors in the Caribbean and the Pacific by murdering Venezuelans and Colombians. Will Trump take Greenland by force? Will he militarily attack Venezuela and Colombia as a foil for taking over other places closer to home after trying to end far-away wars? “One war ends for another to start” has been the principal military wisdom for millennia. So, we must imagine and reason the sanity of stopping wars in Europe and the Middle East and insanely attacking neighbors, drug trafficking or not, that have not threatened the security of the United States.
The US now has over 750 military bases in 80 countries and territories, 38 of which are in Europe alone. With that “level of military supremacy and its secure international order, it has prevented explosive conquests and national border skirmishes that could threaten the realignments of states and territories.” If we dig for a reason why the US has so many bases, we come to the wishful thinking of deterrence, a notion that has been positive for 80 years. However, the war in Ukraine has set a new precedent: Russia is trying to upset the balance of power in Europe. If the West accedes to the transfer of the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine as Putin wishes, deterrence will end – then what? I suspect the possible next step would be to go for more. The Donbas is not enough. Soon after concessions, we should be watching what will happen to Moldova, a relatively small independent country that is not a member of NATO. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are members, but that does not mean Putin will not try to go after one of those smallish states. Nuclear powers might be deterrents, but they could also be timid and rational enough to calculate the odds and calibrate the cost of how far they would go to test the balance of concessions of territory over a nuclear winter. The American political scientist John Joseph Mearsheimer, a proponent of the “offensive realism school of analysis of world affairs,” tells us that most great powers act rationally and are “likely to react violently to perceived threats to their security.” [11] Mearsheimer claims that NATO is to blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “NATO’s expansion into Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, including its overtures to Ukraine,” is the cause of the war in Ukraine. That might happen; however, the flip of that claim is that those Eastern Bloc states – living through 45 years under Soviet control – courted NATO for protection, believing that non-NATO members would not survive their independence.
Deterrence can become the problem. Not every leader comes with military smartness. That is why smart leaders have advisors who spend their time devoted to analysis of military futures for ending wars, not perpetuating them.
The US National Defense budget for 2026 is expected to be over a trillion dollars, so the Pentagon could modernize weapon systems, missile defense, F-47, and the B-21 bombers. It follows a trend of budget boosting. Such escalating expenses are the basics of why wars can be blamed on the institution of military spending and war preparation. The entire world’s annual military budget is over $2 trillion. With that amount of expense dedicated to death and destruction, the economy pots for humanitarian resources that could serve the needs of the world are drained. With budgets expressed in numbers having 12 zeros, the lure of war becomes immeasurable, so war itself becomes, perhaps not inevitable, but surely boosted by a tailwind that thrusts the decree to go to war closer to the brink.
Stronger than the tailwinds against humanitarian needs, there are the gale forces of arms production, sales, and trade from people and companies that benefit from wars, the arms dealers, manufacturers, politicians, and public investors. Wars are driven partly because profitable weapons industries have a powerful influence. The industries themselves do not encourage the start of wars, but their profits and shareholders, some with lobbying power, do. When military agencies are pumped with unfathomable funds, the temptation is to buy weapons. Once those weapons are stocked, there is a push to use them, because the drivers of arms dealing – very influential people – want to show off their products in battlefield performance.
Once those weapons are stocked, there is a push to use them, because the drivers of arms dealing want to show off their products in battlefield performance.
Do some leaders have a propensity for aggression and thereby have a need to thrash their opponents, or are they simply part of a hawkish human culture? It is a difficult question that has a weak answer. Some people and corporations favor toughness in disputes, others in compromises, and still others bicker in greed, religion, orthodoxy, ideology, or simply revenge. When it comes to self-defense, there is no choice other than bargaining or fighting. Or is it simply the madness of nature? To that, there is no straightforward answer.
So, will there ever be a time when there are no more wars?
Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.
There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.
—Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Excerpt of “Locksley Hall”
Two answers. Both are frightening.
At some point, individual geopolitical economies will implode, leaving a few dominant nations or perhaps just one. We see this happening now, with China and the US in a technology race, and we can be sure that others will attempt to either move in that direction or become dependent on the winners. Referring to that race, Vladimir Putin in 2017 asserted, “The one who becomes the leader in this sphere [AI] will be the ruler of the world,” to which Elon Musk retorted, “AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization.”[12] Essentially, there will be one or very few independent governments without the need for aggression against other powers. Surely those governments (or the sole winning one) will be deeply totalitarian with a need to control its civilians through surveillance and lockdowns. China already has over a billion surveillance cameras – one for every 2.4 citizens – installed on streets, offices, and housing complexes. [13]
With that security, China, like most other authoritarian countries, does have a relatively small civil unrest problem, but nothing like so many other countries without such a massive, dense social surveillance climate. In a race for allies that could support threats for the sake of deterrents after building a massive army that every other country, including the United States, will be frightened of, it aims to alter the control of technology by its AI superiority, control, and dominance of 17 rare-earth minerals. This is not hyperbole. We do not know how the technology race will turn out, but several distinguished political historians, economists, fiction writers, scientists, diverse characters, and even US presidents believe that global governance of a universal state living in uninterrupted peace is inevitable.[14] Is that fantasy or omen?
Such a warning would put us in a Huxleyan world that accepts the kind of citizen custody that ignores rights and mandates the silence of wishes. There is no doubt that such a revised social contract will be hard to accept. Any global government will eventually become a hegemonic kleptocracy, unless the highly unlikely happens: a philosopher king takes the throne. Highly unlikely? Yes, anyone with virtue, truth, knowledge, reason, and justice, benevolently caring for civilian well-being, someone insulated with high integrity and honesty, would not take a job that torments one with the wisdom that power leads to corruption. History lists dead benevolent leaders, a list so small that the odds of another appearing are no better than that of a messiah.
We are now in a situation of having nine countries possessing nuclear weapons. In the next half-century, that number will grow. Moreover, there will be rogue states and terrorist groups that will gain possession of some lower-grade nuclear weapons, bought or stolen. Suppose that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a treaty aiming to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is not fully ratified by all nuclear states. Suppose nuclear weapons spread. What then are the risks concerning deliberate attacks or miscalculations, and accidents?
Effects of a nuclear_war Future_of_Life_Institute [15]Nuclear Winter Future_of_Life_Institute
The Hibakusha help us to describe the indescribable, to think the unthinkable, and to somehow grasp the incomprehensible pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons. [16]
– Jorgen Watne Frydnes, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, referring to the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo’s global impact through sharing their story of the atomic bombing.
Either by accident or by the power of an insane leader, a nuclear bomb will be used again. “Someday, we will wake to the news that half a million people in one city will either be dead or severely burned, causing anger that will surely turn to revenge. And what will be the plan? To quickly retaliate against the retaliator and jump into the chaos of the moment?” [17] A 2010 simulation experiment estimates that after a nuclear war, a global climate disorientation will happen and last at least five years, likely nine. If such a war gets out of control, two years later, the number of fatalities from radiation exposure and the number of civilians starving would wipe out most of the world population: “Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery, and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection.” [18]
Graph showing how The Doomsday Clock’s minutes to midnight changed throughout the years. Public Domain
Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. [20]
– Excerpt from President John F. Kennedy’s address before the United Nations General Assembly, September 25, 1961.
At the time of Kennedy’s warning, the Doomsday Clock, set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, was showing 7 minutes from midnight. Today it is at 89 seconds to midnight. That clock is a metaphorical prediction, based on collected nuclear-advanced information that warns about the possible nuclear threats to global existence. The smallest atomic war will bring enormous destruction to life and infrastructure, but any nuclear war will undoubtedly escalate to unintended devastating consequences that could cause billions – not millions – of deaths and casualties, along with famine and a sunless black winter that will cool the earth enough to hinder habitation and likely procreation.
What then? Likely, after the cycle of warfare madness ends, if enough humans remain alive, there will be a chance to reboot civilization with a wiser, more experientially suffered understanding of how war devastates humanity. Then, for that short, short time before humans inevitably again fall into the cycle of aping Goodall’s chimp contagious dark aggression, there will be no wars.
Joseph Mazuris an Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Emerson College’s Marlboro Institute for Liberal Arts & Interdisciplinary Studies. He is a recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim, Bogliasco, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the author of eight acclaimed popular nonfiction books. His latest book is The Clock Mirage: Our Myth of Measured Time (Yale).
Notes
[1]Estimates vary widely but the information I give comes from the Human Rights Office of the United Nations High Commissioner.
[3] Arquilla, John. December 3, 2012. Rational Security The Big Kill.Sorry, Steven Pinker, the world isn’t getting less violent. Foreign Policy
[4] Bastian Herre, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, and Max Roser (2024) – “War and Peace” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
[5] Jason Lyall, Project Mars (2020) – with major processing by Our World in Data. “Civil wars” [dataset]. Jason Lyall, “Project Mars” [original data].
[6]Famous Last Words (Netflix Original); An interview with Brad Fulchuk, American television writer.
[7] Barbara W. Tuchman, The Guns of August (Toronto: Presidio Press, 2004) p. 12-13.
[8] Margaret Mead’s article was initially published in 1940 in the American Anthropological Association by Asia Vol. 40 Issue 8, pp 402-405 (which I could not find), but the full piece is now available in: Richard K. Betts, Conflict After the Cold War (New York: Routledge, 2005) pp. 244-48.
The vaping industry in 2025 reflects a remarkable transition from a trend-driven niche to a stable and professional sector grounded in technology, safety, and user satisfaction. Over the past decade, vaping has steadily evolved, guided by both consumer awareness and technological innovation. This year marks a turning point, where the focus has shifted entirely toward refining the experience, improving standards, and prioritizing long-term trust between manufacturers and consumers.
One of the key factors influencing this transformation is the growing dominance of nicotine salts. Compared to traditional freebase nicotine, this formulation provides smoother vapor, faster absorption, and a more natural satisfaction that closely resembles traditional smoking. Its chemistry allows for a lower pH level, reducing irritation and enabling users to enjoy higher nicotine concentrations without harshness. As a result, nicotine salts have redefined expectations and paved the way for smaller, more efficient pod systems that deliver consistency and ease of use.
The modern vaper in 2025 is better informed and more selective. Instead of impulsive purchases, consumers now seek verified information, lab-tested products, and clear ingredient transparency. This demand has encouraged companies to adopt stricter manufacturing protocols and publish independent quality certifications. The industry has effectively matured, moving beyond flashy marketing toward accountability and evidence-based performance.
Technology remains the driving force behind this progress. Advanced chipsets inside today’s devices automatically regulate voltage, temperature, and airflow to ensure a balanced vapor output. Some systems even monitor puff frequency and adjust settings dynamically to optimize flavor and longevity. Battery improvements have also played a major role—charging times are shorter, capacities are larger, and overall efficiency has reached unprecedented levels. Together, these innovations make vaping more reliable and predictable than ever before.
Regulatory evolution has had a major impact as well. Across the European Union and other developed markets, the introduction of unified safety standards has raised the bar for compliance. Every stage of production—from ingredient sourcing to packaging—must now meet traceability and labeling requirements. This ensures that consumers can make informed choices and trust the authenticity of the products they use. Rather than stifling the market, these regulations have actually strengthened it, rewarding companies that value integrity over shortcuts.
Sustainability is another defining theme of 2025. As environmental concerns grow, the shift away from disposable vapes toward refillable systems has accelerated. Manufacturers are adopting recyclable materials, biodegradable packaging, and modular designs that extend the lifespan of devices. Many brands have introduced return or recycling programs to minimize waste and encourage responsible use. This eco-conscious direction not only benefits the planet but also appeals to a generation of consumers who value ethics as much as performance.
The rise of specialized online retailers has further supported this responsible transformation. Instead of unverified third-party listings, consumers now turn to curated stores offering tested and certified products. Trusted platforms like VapeVibe exemplify this new approach, combining product expertise with transparency and customer support. Their focus on compliance and authenticity represents the standard that the modern vaping industry is striving to maintain globally.
Flavor innovation continues to evolve in parallel with technology. Rather than producing excessive sweetness or artificial notes, today’s e-liquids aim for balance and realism. The use of nicotine salts enhances this precision by preserving flavor profiles even at lower wattages, allowing subtle nuances to emerge. This development caters to a mature audience that values refined, natural-tasting experiences rather than novelty.
Looking ahead, the next frontier of vaping lies in personalization and data integration. Smart devices capable of tracking consumption and providing tailored feedback are already being tested. Artificial intelligence and connected apps could soon enable users to control nicotine intake with greater precision, making vaping safer and more efficient.
In conclusion, vaping in 2025 represents a sophisticated ecosystem built on science, transparency, and responsibility. The popularity of nicotine salts, combined with advancements in sustainability, technology, and regulation, has set a new global benchmark. The industry’s direction is clear: toward refinement, reliability, and respect for the consumer. The result is a more sustainable, informed, and forward-looking market that continues to evolve with purpose rather than hype.
Most often, people leave home for work or travel unaware that a single moment of negligence could drastically change their lives in an instant. Catastrophic car crashes and construction site accidents are not only human tragedies that come with expensive hospitalizations—they are unfortunate events whose impacts resonate significantly with families, workplaces, communities, and the country’s economy. We have witnessed cases firsthand where a single collision or job-site fall left survivors unable to return to their previous line of work, forcing their households to adjust to sudden income loss and lifelong care needs.
While policymakers often discuss safety in terms of regulation and compliance, the deeper reality is that they still fall short of tackling the far-reaching consequences of these preventable incidents—most notably how they drain productivity, destabilize households, and strain the public systems. This article seeks to frame car and construction accidents not just as safety failures but as a national economic liability that demands coordinated, as well as preventive and justice-oriented reform.
These statistics are not just mere numbers—they underline the deadly cost of existing gaps in safety awareness and risk management. Even when victims are fortunate enough to survive, their lives may still be severely impacted. Whether on the highway or a job site, those who make it through usually suffer injuries like orthopedic trauma, whiplash, traumatic brain injuries, nerve damage, internal bleeding, or multiple fractures that demand extensive treatment and rehabilitation. Consequently, many deal with chronic pain, reduced mobility, disfigurement, cognitive impairment, or other psychological disorders, which impact their day-to-day survival. This trend suggests a critical need to strengthen education, training, and proactive preventive measures to reduce the frequency as well as the severity of these tragedies.
When Catastrophic Accidents Lead to Household Fallout
When catastrophic injuries or wrongful deaths occur, the impact reaches far beyond the hospital—it also affects almost all aspects of a household, particularly as these events often lead to unexpected financial burdens. The latest Economic Well-Being Report has already indicated that about 37% of Americans struggle to shoulder a $400 emergency expense, which suggests that a large chunk of the population struggles when confronted by sudden challenges. In that context, the financial toll of a severe accident—which frequently requires months or even years of expensive rehabilitation, home modifications, and ongoing medical care—can drive many families to the brink of collapse.
The financial toll of a severe accident—which frequently requires months or even years of expensive rehabilitation, home modifications, and ongoing medical care—can drive many families to the brink of collapse.
In most cases we have handled, the loss of a primary income is often the first blow. For instance, a construction worker or a car driver who suffers paralysis after a fall or collision may definitely lose wages during a specific period. Yet beyond this, they may also face long-term financial security issues as missed mortgage payments, as well as drained savings and unpaid medical bills, begin to accumulate. At the same time, spouses or family members may step into caregiving roles to take care of their recuperating loved one. Unfortunately, this may force them to surrender their career or reduce work hours, which further narrows the household’s income stream. Also aggravating this problem are insurance policies that deny coverage for home modifications, mobility equipment, or extended in-home care.
Over time, these pressures do not just strain households—they also erode community stability. When affected families are left with no other choice but to drain their savings or take on debt, they also reduce their spending power and increase their reliance on public assistance, thereby weakening their local economy. At this point, one family’s tragedy can escalate into a shared economic burden.
The Economic Repercussions of Catastrophic Accidents
Besides their human toll, catastrophic injuries likewise carry drastic economic consequences that span across various sectors and communities. This is because when workers or motorists are suddenly removed from the labor force after getting injured, productivity drops, household spending declines, and worse, local economies begin to feel the strain. As per the 2023 report posted by the National Safety Council (NSC), motor-vehicle crashes alone cost the US economy as much as $513.8 billion. This amount accounted for lost wages, administrative and legal fees, property damage, medical expenses that are usually drawn from employees’ health insurance, and employers’ uninsured costs. In the same year, work injuries—including those construction-related—also added roughly $176.5 billion, much of which was absorbed by foregone revenues and hospital expenses.
The rippling effects of these accidents are unmistakable. Permanent disability or death erases years of potential earnings, reduces tax contributions, and increases dependence on public aid. And for industries like construction and manufacturing—where skilled labor drives local commerce—a single serious accident can trigger a domino effect as project delays, cost overruns, and employment disruptions affect their operations.
The Strain on Public Health and Emergency Systems
We have seen how every catastrophic accident sets off a chain of consequences that burdens the nation’s healthcare infrastructure. Based on the latest count, at least 5.1 million motor vehicle-related injuries were medically consulted in 2023, while 260,000 individuals were harmed in construction site accidents. These figures illustrate not only the scale of human suffering but also the financial weight shouldered by hospitals, insurers, and public health systems alike.
This issue has been particularly evident in rural and semi-urban communities where trauma units and rehabilitation facilities are very limited. In such areas, patients are usually transported long distances just to receive proper treatment; however, such situations typically result in higher medical costs and delayed care. This strain is also compounded by insufficient trauma surgeons, critical care nurses, and rehabilitation specialists. In fact, each time we work with trauma facilities in these regions, we witness how overextended staff and inadequate resources make recovery more challenging for patients and their families. To cope with this, healthcare providers are often forced to divert their funding and attention from preventive programs to crisis response. And though such a move provides temporary relief to their exhausted workforce, this shift can drive an increase in medical expenses for everyone and worsen inequities in our healthcare system.
Shifting Pressure on the Insurance System
Car and construction accidents continue to place mounting pressure on regional insurance systems. In areas with particularly high incident rates or where employers or individuals have a history of frequent claims, premiums for health, disability, and workers’ compensation coverage often grow steeply. Such an escalation consequently yields financial stress affecting businesses—especially smaller firms—as it limits their capability to expand, hire additional staff, or invest in safety upgrades. True to this, nearly one-third of small businesses discontinued their employee health coverage from one year to the next, mainly due to the skyrocketing cost of insurance premiums.
Meanwhile, insurers have tightened claim standards, which leads to more frequent claim denials and settlement offers that fall short of covering the actual costs of recovery. When this occurs, the financial burden automatically shifts to those who should not absorb it. Families are forced to deplete savings to pay medical bills, while public programs as well as healthcare systems are likewise compelled to cover emergency care, long-term rehabilitation, and several other uncompensated costs. As a result, such situations create a collective financial strain—further exacerbating inequality and undermining trust in institutions meant to provide protection.
Building Resilient Communities After Catastrophic Injuries
Legal advocacy is also a central element in this ecosystem of resilience. In handling cases involving catastrophic injuries, we could attest how personal injury and wrongful death litigation hold negligent parties accountable.
Communities that successfully navigate the aftermath of catastrophic injuries do so not by chance but through deliberate and purposeful strategies. They invest in infrastructure and workplace safety as well as strong safety nets for affected families. Although these initiatives require upfront resources, they yield long-term benefits through reduced healthcare costs, stronger workforce productivity, and the ability to attract businesses and maintain economic stability.
Legal advocacy is also a central element in this ecosystem of resilience. In handling cases involving catastrophic injuries, we could attest how personal injury and wrongful death litigation hold negligent parties accountable—whether the harm comes from a reckless driver, a construction contractor cutting corners, or an insurer denying rightful claims. This is because when families secure fair compensation, the money flows back into the local economy as they can already support medical care, caregiving, and housing needs. At the same time, the settlements and verdicts they achieve send a strong message to businesses and industries that negligence carries real consequences.
Making Safety a Policy and Economic Priority
The path forward strongly requires a fundamental shift in how we view safety. As such, we should recognize this matter as a vital economic investment and not just a mere regulatory obligation. By doing so, we can prevent more car and construction accidents and eventually save billions in healthcare costs, preserve workforce capacity, and maintain the stability of families and communities. At this point, policymakers have a critical role to play, particularly in coordinating efforts across transportation, labor, and healthcare sectors to establish a unified framework for injury prevention.
Ultimately, prioritizing human life is the most rational economic policy of all. This is especially true given that the cost of negligence is not only limited to immediate injuries or fatalities—it also undermines household stability, diminishes workforce productivity, and strains public services. By integrating safety into economic planning and policy design, governments and communities can reduce preventable injuries, protect families, and strengthen the resilience of industries.
Safeguarding Financial Stability After Catastrophic Injuries
The truth is that recovering financially from severe accidents or wrongful deaths often hinges on having the right legal guidance. Without proper representation, families can face significant financial strain, especially when insurance companies undervalue claims or refuse coverage for long-term care.
So, if you or a loved one suffers injuries in a catastrophic car crash or construction site accident, seeking assistance from experienced personal injury attorneys is crucial. They can help navigate complex claims as well as negotiate fair settlements needed for ongoing medical care, intensive rehabilitation, necessary home modifications, and even compensation for missed earnings. Essentially, with the proper legal support, families have a greater chance of securing financial stability—all while focusing on recovery and managing other long-term challenges following these life-altering events.
O’Brien & Zehnder Law Firmhas been advocating for accident injury and wrongful death victims in Elk Grove and nearby Sacramento County communities for the past 26 years. Led by award-winning attorneys John O’Brien and Grant Zehnder, the firm combines compassionate client support with aggressive legal representation to secure full compensation for medical care as well as lost wages and other long-term recovery needs.
In the past two years, Israeli obliteration has turned Gaza into an uninhabitable death zone. What is less known, however, is that this is the effect of decades of deliberate ecocide – and of the West’s purposeful efforts to undermine both genocide and ecocide legislation.
The final step of the broadest possible genocide is ecocide; that is, the intentional destruction of the environment necessary for the support of human life.
Ecocide, in turn, is directly related to the decimation of the reproduction of culture that Raphael Lemkin, the pioneer of the Genocide Convention, associated with the concept of “cultural genocide.”
Gaza is a textbook case.
The long legal effort to suppress ecocide
In The Obliteration Doctrine, I show in painful detail how Lemkin had to compromise this idea. While he got strong support from the countries of the Global South, the former colonial powers, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, undermined Lemkin’s quest. Consequently, the current Genocide Convention is just a mutilated torso of the original idea.
Ever since Olof Palme, the Swedish prime minister, accused the United States of ecocide at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, war has often seen as the primary cause of ecocide, along with over-exploitation of natural resources and industrial disasters.
War has often seen as the primary cause of ecocide, along with over-exploitation of natural resources and industrial disasters.
In environmental law, ecocide (from ancient Greek oikos ‘home’ and Latin caedere ‘to kill’) connotes the destruction of the environment by humans. It has often been associated with genocide. In effect, in the late 1990s ecocide in peacetime was to have been included in the Rome Statute. However, it was deleted due to objections by the United Kingdom, France, and the United States; that is, by the former colonial powers. Such censure would not have surprised Lemkin who knew well that these powers did not want to pay for their crimes in the world court. Nonetheless, as a result, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes no provision for the crime of ecocide in peacetime, only in wartime.
Just months before October 7, 2023, the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide defined it as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”
The decades-long ecocide in Gaza
Well before October 7, 2023, the Gaza Strip had progressively been isolated from the West Bank and the outside world overall, while being subjected to repeated Israeli military incursions – over three decades, in parallel with the Madrid and Oslo peace talks.
In terms of environmental damage, deterioration had worsened since 2014, when the clearing and bulldozing of agricultural and residential lands by the Israeli military close to the eastern border of Gaza had been coupled with the unannounced aerial spraying of crop-killing herbicides. These illicit practices not only destroyed entire swaths of formerly arable land along the border fence but also crops and farmlands hundreds of meters deep into Palestinian territory, resulting in the loss of livelihoods for Gazan farmers.
In a historical view, such massive bombardment went back to the early days of the Cold War, when the United States dropped bombs on North Korean dams to flood crops and induce starvation among civilians. To compound the same effect, irrigation systems were attacked on the ground. The difference is that in Gaza the geographic scope of destruction was far narrower than in Korea, but the decimation far more effective, intensive and lethal.
Colonial violence and environmental warfare
From the beginning, “environmental warfare in Gaza” has been marked by colonial violence. It has been an inherent part of the Palestinian expulsions and Israeli occupation since the late 1940s.
Furthermore, the destruction is central to the Obliteration Doctrine of the Israeli military, which was initiated in Lebanon in the late 2000s and perfected in Gaza in 2023-25. In that sense, the Nakba has also a lesser-known environmental dimension, “the complete transformation of the environment, the weather, the soil, the loss of the indigenous climate, the vegetation, the skies. The Nakba is a process of colonially imposed vulnerability to climate change.”
Even at the eve of October 7, World Bank analysts warned that in the West Bank and Gaza, drivers of fragility, development constraints, and vulnerability to climate change were closely interconnected, thanks to decades of the fragmentation of land, restrictions on the movement of people and goods, recurrent episodes of violent conflict, persistent political and policy uncertainty, and the lack of sovereign control over critical natural resources.
As the net effect of the Gaza War, widespread damages to built-up areas from the use of explosive weapons have resulted in direct impacts on water services and in millions of tons of debris, toxic waste and destroyed agricultural lands. This has led to the outbreak of communicable diseases from poor water, health and sanitation conditions, combined with the risk of exposure to a range of additional hazardous materials and the collapse of environmental governance.
The death zone
Hence, the damage to water infrastructure and widescale urban destruction in combination with a severely degraded healthcare system; all of which posed a long-lasting threat to both public health and livelihoods.
The future that awaited Palestinians at the end of the hostilities was a Gaza turned into an “uninhabitable death war zone.”
By late April 2024, Israel’s obliteration of Gaza had already created 37m tonnes of debris. That amounts to an average of 300kg of rubble per square meter of land in the Gaza Strip. Worse, much of these piles and heaps of debris and wreckage were laced with unexploded bombs, which could take up to 15 years of extensive work to remove, assuming the availability of 100 trucks on a daily basis.
Taking into consideration the fact that on average about 10 percent of weapons failed to detonate when fired, huge demining teams would be warranted for years. The longer the war continued, the longer would the clearance take at its end.
During the first two months of Israel’s assault on Gaza, the projected emissions from there exceeded the annual emissions of 20 individual countries and territories.
Indeed, the total emissions increased to more than those of over 33 individual countries and territories when the war infrastructure built by both Israel and Hamas is included, such as Hamas’s tunnel network and Israel’s protective fence or “Iron Wall.” In that light, the carbon costs of reconstructing Gaza are likely to prove huge.
The overwhelming majority of the 281,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide (CO2) generated in the first two months of hostilities can be traced to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza.
Almost half the total carbon emissions were down to U.S. cargo planes flying military supplies to Israel. By contrast, Hamas rockets fired into Israel in the same period generated 713 MT of CO2, which is equivalent to 300 MT of coal. There was no symmetry in war machinery.
The initial brutal offensive by Hamas was overwhelmed by Israel’s obliteration of what used to be Gaza. Worse, these estimates are highly conservative because they are based on just two months of the war that had already endured three times longer by June 2024.
More importantly, the actual carbon footprint could prove five to eight times higher, when emissions from the entire war supply chain were included.
Furthermore, what has happened in Gaza won’t stay in Gaza. Even the perpetrators cannot avoid their own poison.
Spillovers of ecocide
The overall cost for rebuilding Gaza is estimated to be tens of billions of dollars over decades, with some projections reaching as high as $70 billion.
The actual carbon footprint could prove five to eight times higher, when emissions from the entire war supply chain were included.
The obliteration of Gaza has inflicted severe and potentially irreversible environmental damage, including widespread contamination of water, soil, and air with toxic substances, the collapse of critical infrastructure, and massive carbon emissions.
The effects of this environmental catastrophe are likely to mimic those of past conflicts involving widespread environmental destruction – for instance, U.S. deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam – which in one form or another will likely be felt by Israeli citizens for years or decades to come.
In the foreseeable future, these key impacts on Israel may include public health crises, water contamination, adverse agricultural and economic effects, rising contribution into climate change, not to mention the security concerns that will ensue from the deliberate creation of an uninhabitable environment in Gaza.
As Israeli environmental groups warned already a decade ago, the untreated sewage from Gaza that has flowed into the Mediterranean Sea is a ticking time bomb. Following the obliteration of Gaza, the destruction of wastewater treatment facilities creates a significant risk of infectious diseases, even cholera, that could spread along the coast. Additionally, the potential contamination of shared coastal aquifers with seawater, heavy metals, and chemicals poses a long-term threat to Israel’s freshwater supplies.
The inconvenient truth is that water contamination, like ecocide, knows no borders.
The original version was published by Informed Comment (US) on November 25, 2025.
In the race to leverage the transformative potential of Generative AI (Gen AI), associations often face a familiar challenge: internal competition. Chapters, committees, and departments may vie to showcase their AI advancements, driven by metrics, recognition, or the desire to lead innovation. While competition can inspire individual excellence, it can hinder the broader, mission-aligned progress that associations require to effectively serve their members. The Gen AI revolution demands collaboration—sharing insights, breaking down silos, and innovating collectively to overcome challenges, address risks, and leverage opportunities.
The Pitfalls of Internal Competition for Gen AI Initiatives
The instinct to compete is common within associations. Volunteer leaders and staff may feel pressure to outperform others, deliver impactful results, or claim ownership of innovations. While this drive can occasionally lead to breakthroughs, it often has unintended consequences in the Gen AI context.
Gen AI thrives on iterative learning and experimentation. Not all experiments succeed, but failures can offer valuable lessons.
Gen AI thrives on iterative learning and experimentation. Not all experiments succeed, but failures can offer valuable lessons. Unfortunately, a culture of competition discourages teams from sharing their setbacks. For fear of losing credibility or support, teams may avoid discussing mistakes, depriving others of opportunities to learn and innovate more effectively.
Moreover, internal silos foster inefficiency. In one professional association for which I consulted, two chapters independently developed Gen AI-driven event planning tools. Neither group was aware of the other’s efforts due to a competitive, siloed culture. This duplication wasted time and resources, and the lack of collaboration prevented the creation of a unified model that could have delivered far greater insights. Ultimately, the association needed to undertake significant culture change and relationship-building work initiatives to foster better cross-functional cooperation as part of their AI strategy.
Collaboration Unlocks the Full Potential of Gen AI Initiatives
The key to unlocking Gen AI’s transformative potential lies in collaboration. By bringing together diverse perspectives from chapters, committees, and staff, associations can develop richer, more innovative solutions than isolated efforts can achieve.
For example, a national healthcare association of about 20 staff struggled with inconsistent member engagement across its regional chapters. As a consultant, I introduced a collaborative approach that brought together chapter leaders, the IT team, and the membership committee.
Pooling data from event attendance, member surveys, and digital interactions, they developed a Gen AI-powered engagement strategy. The AI system identified patterns that allowed chapters to tailor programming and outreach more effectively, resulting in a 25% increase in member retention and a 30% boost in event participation within a year. The breakthrough wasn’t just in the technology—it stemmed from the collective expertise and coordinated effort of the entire organization.
The Building Blocks of Collaboration
To foster a culture of collaboration, associations must create intentional structures and processes. Effective collaboration requires more than goodwill; it depends on clear frameworks and supportive leadership.
1. Establish Knowledge-Sharing Platforms
Creating formal opportunities for knowledge exchange is critical. Innovation forums, cross-functional task forces, or regular Gen AI summits can enable teams to share experiments, insights, and challenges. For instance, a state-level engineering association I advised introduced quarterly “AI Innovation Rounds.” During these sessions, chapters presented their ongoing projects, such as using AI to streamline certification renewals or improve conference scheduling. These forums not only sparked new ideas but also encouraged chapters to adopt each other’s successful practices, creating efficiencies that saved the association time and resources.
2. Use Collaborative Tools and Technologies
Collaboration tools like Slack, Microsoft Teams, or project management platforms can facilitate seamless communication across geographically dispersed teams. These tools enable real-time updates, data sharing, and brainstorming, breaking down barriers to cooperation.
In one association dedicated to urban planning, a Gen AI-driven tool was used to analyze zoning regulation data for member training resources. Using Trello, the training and advocacy teams coordinated their efforts, merging insights from their respective projects. The result was a unified resource hub that increased member satisfaction scores by 20% and streamlined the staff’s workflow.
3. Foster Leadership That Champions Collaboration
Leadership plays a pivotal role in cultivating collaboration. Recognizing and rewarding cross-functional efforts can shift the organizational mindset from competition to collective success. Awards for collaborative achievements or public recognition for teamwork send a strong message about the value of working together.
One financial association I worked with introduced a “Collaborative Innovation” award. The first recipients were a partnership between the policy and membership teams who developed a Gen AI-powered advocacy tracker. This tool allowed members to monitor legislative changes relevant to their field in real time, boosting member engagement by 35%.
Overcoming Resistance to Collaboration
Despite its benefits, fostering collaboration can be challenging. Teams accustomed to working independently may resist sharing their projects or fear losing control over their contributions. Associations can address these concerns by embedding collaboration into their workflows from the outset.
When launching Gen AI initiatives, leaders should design cross-functional teams that draw on diverse skills and perspectives. This approach not only produces stronger solutions but also normalizes collaboration as a standard operating procedure. For example, a legal association developing a Gen AI-powered research assistant included representatives from their continuing education committee, their IT staff, and member volunteers. By working together, they created a resource that met a broad spectrum of member needs while fostering a sense of shared ownership.
Additionally, leaders must clearly communicate the value of collaboration. Highlighting successful examples and emphasizing tangible benefits—such as faster project completion, reduced costs, or improved member satisfaction—can build organizational buy-in.
Collaboration does more than enhance individual Gen AI initiatives; it creates lasting organizational value. Shared knowledge becomes an evolving repository of insights and best practices, enabling future teams to build on prior successes. This collective intelligence accelerates innovation cycles and improves outcomes over time.
Collaboration does more than enhance individual Gen AI initiatives; it creates lasting organizational value.
Collaboration also enhances agility. In the fast-evolving Gen AI landscape, associations with strong collaborative cultures are better equipped to adapt to new challenges and opportunities. They can pivot quickly, leveraging their collective expertise to remain at the forefront of their profession’s needs.
Conclusion
The Gen AI revolution requires a shift in mindset for associations. While internal competition may have its place in some contexts, the demands of Gen AI call for a collaborative approach. By breaking down silos, fostering knowledge-sharing, and celebrating teamwork, associations can unlock the full potential of this transformative technology. Collaboration isn’t just a best practice for Gen AI—it’s a strategic advantage. Associations that embrace collaboration will not only advance their missions but also strengthen their ability to serve members and elevate their professions.
In an age of constant speculation, many investors rarely pause to ask a fundamental question: Do I truly own gold, or am I simply trading it? While the distinction may appear subtle, it often determines whether wealth is preserved for the long term or exposed to market volatility.
The Illusion of Ownership
Modern markets have made gold exposure remarkably easy. Through mobile apps, ETFs, and derivatives, many people believe they “own” gold — when in reality, they hold only a financial instrument tied to its price. Exposure is not the same as possession. Wealth that can be affected by counterparty defaults, platform outages, or market instability remains vulnerable to the very risks investors hope to avoid.
This shift is reflected in global trends. According to the World Gold Council, worldwide gold demand reached nearly 4,900 tons in 2023, the highest level in more than a decade. At the same time, gold ETFs saw net outflows, indicating a move away from paper-based claims and toward physical holdings.
Ownership That Outlasts Systems
Physical gold offers a form of permanence that trading products cannot. It can be securely stored, insured, and independently audited, providing verifiable evidence of ownership. Unlike digital assets or financial instruments dependent on third-party infrastructure, physical gold remains independent of banks, algorithms, or political decisions.
Institutional investors and family offices are increasingly recognizing this value. Many have increased allocations to physical gold as a safeguard against systemic risks, economic uncertainty, and currency devaluation.
From Price Movements to Preservation
Short-term traders often focus on price changes, while long-term owners value gold for its stability and purchasing power. Gold’s enduring strength lies not in its volatility but in its ability to preserve wealth across economic cycles. Central banks, among the world’s most disciplined investors, demonstrated this approach clearly by acquiring more than 1,000 tons of gold in 2023 — a decision driven by long-term security rather than speculation.
A Framework for Long-Term Security
Responsible gold ownership involves proper storage, transparent audits, and adherence to compliance standards. These measures help ensure that the asset retains its value over time and remains protected across generations. This structured approach highlights the difference between owning a physical asset and merely holding exposure to its price.
The Enduring Value of Tangibility
There is lasting reassurance in possessing wealth that does not rely on servers, networks, or market sentiment. Tangible gold offers stability and independence that financial instruments cannot replicate. While trading gold may generate short-term gains, owning it preserves value across decades — a principle recognized by long-term investors, central banks, and financial institutions worldwide.
Applying for a U.S. visa or green card is stressful enough without worrying about whether your documents are translated correctly. Immigration officers at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) are strict about document requirements.
One small mistake with your visa translation can lead to delays, requests for evidence, or even outright rejection.
If you’re submitting birth certificates, marriage licenses, academic transcripts, or financial documents from another country, certified translations are a must. Let’s explore the most common pitfalls people face when translating their documents for USCIS – and how you can avoid them.
Why Translations Matter in Immigration Applications
Every document you submit to USCIS that isn’t in English must be accompanied by a complete certified translation. This includes personal records like birth or marriage certificates, as well as legal or financial paperwork. A certified translation confirms that the translator is competent in both languages and that the translation is accurate and complete.
Skipping this requirement or cutting corners can cost you time, money, and sometimes the chance to secure your visa.
Mistake 1: Using Free Online Translation Tools
It’s tempting to copy-paste your document into an online tool. While machine translations can be useful for casual use, they are not acceptable for immigration purposes.
Why?
They often mistranslate legal terms or names.
They can miss context, leading to inaccurate translations.
They don’t provide certification, which USCIS requires.
How to avoid it: Always use a professional translation service that offers certified translations specifically for immigration documents.
Mistake 2: Submitting Incomplete Translations
USCIS requires a complete translation of every word in your document. This includes:
Stamps
Signatures
Seals
Marginal notes
Leaving anything out, even if it seems unimportant, could cause USCIS to question the validity of your application.
How to avoid it: Double-check that every visible part of your document is translated. A professional service will ensure no detail is missed.
Mistake 3: Forgetting the Certificate of Accuracy
A translation isn’t enough on its own. USCIS requires a signed certificate of translation accuracy, which states:
The translator is competent in both languages.
The translation is complete and accurate.
Without this certificate, your documents may be rejected even if the translation itself is perfect.
How to avoid it: Choose a translation provider that always delivers a certificate of accuracy with each translated document.
Mistake 4: Using Translators Without Immigration Experience
Not all translators understand the strict requirements for immigration. An academic translator or a bilingual friend might be fluent, but if they’re unfamiliar with USCIS rules, they can make small mistakes with formatting, terminology, or certification.
How to avoid it: Work with professionals who specialize in visa translation and certified translations for immigration. They know how USCIS reviews documents and can anticipate potential issues.
Mistake 5: Waiting Until the Last Minute
Immigration processes come with strict deadlines. Leaving translations to the last minute can create unnecessary stress – and rushed translations increase the chance of mistakes.
How to avoid it: Start gathering and translating your documents early. Many services offer expedited options, but it’s always better to plan ahead.
Best Practices for Visa Translation Success
To make sure your USCIS application goes smoothly:
Use certified translations for every non-English document.
Verify that a certificate of accuracy is included.
Ensure the translation is complete, including seals and notes.
Choose a provider experienced in immigration translations.
Plan ahead to avoid unnecessary delays.
FAQs About Certified Translations for USCIS
Do I need certified translations for every non-English document?
Yes. USCIS requires certified translations for all documents not written in English.
Can I translate my own documents if I’m fluent?
No. Self-translations are not accepted. The translator must be a separate qualified individual.
What is the difference between notarized and certified translations?
Certified translations include a signed certificate of accuracy. Some institutions may also request notarization, but for USCIS, certification is the key requirement.
How long do certified translations take?
It depends on the length and complexity of your documents. Many providers, including Certling, offer both standard and expedited services.
Where to Get Certified Translations
When dealing with immigration paperwork, accuracy and compliance are non-negotiable. That’s why working with a trusted service matters.
At Certling, we provide certified translations for visa and immigration documents such as birth certificates, marriage licenses, academic records, and more. Our translations come with a certificate of accuracy and are accepted by USCIS, UKVI, IRCC, and other immigration authorities worldwide.
Final Thoughts
Your immigration journey is too important to be derailed by a translation mistake. By avoiding common pitfalls like incomplete translations, missing certificates, or using unqualified translators, you can give USCIS exactly what it requires – and move one step closer to approval.
Whether you’re applying for a student visa, family reunification, or permanent residency, certified translations are an essential part of the process. Choose wisely, plan ahead, and avoid the mistakes that could sink your application.
By Terence Tse
CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value.
A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
The World Financial Review uses cookies to improve site functionality, provide you with a better browsing experience, and to enable our partners to advertise to you. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this Site, and how you can decline them, is provided in our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. By clicking on the accept button and using this Site, you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Joseph Mazur
The author of 
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky
