We are Nobel laureates, scientists, writers and artists. The threat of fascism is back

Spread the love

Article republished from the Guardian. The text of the letter is © 2025 Stop Return Fascism.

Open letter

‘We scientists, philosophers, writers, artists and citizens of the world have a responsibility to denounce and resist the resurgence of fascism in all its forms.’ Photograph: Karl B DeBlaker/AP

As in 1925, when Mussolini was in power, we must openly defy the brutal imposition of the fascist ideology

On 1 May 1925, with Benito Mussolini already in power, a group of Italian intellectuals publicly denounced his fascist regime in an open letter. The signatories – scientists, philosophers, writers and artists – took a stand in support of the essential tenets of a free society: the rule of law, personal liberty and independent thinking, culture, art and science. Their open defiance against the brutal imposition of the fascist ideology – at great personal risk – proved that opposition was not only possible, but necessary. Today, 100 years later, the threat of fascism is back – and so we must summon that courage and defy it again.

Fascism emerged in Italy a century ago, marking the advent of modern dictatorship. Within a few years, it spread across Europe and the world, taking different names but maintaining similar forms. Wherever it seized power, it undermined the separation of powers in the service of autocracy, silenced opposition through violence, took control of the press, halted the advancement of women’s rights and crushed workers’ struggles for economic justice. Inevitably, it permeated and distorted all institutions devoted to scientific, academic and cultural activities. Its cult of death exalted imperial aggression and genocidal racism, triggering the second world war, the Holocaust, the death of tens of millions of people and crimes against humanity.

At the same time, the resistance to fascism and the many other fascist ideologies became a fertile ground for imagining alternative ways of organising societies and international relations. The world that emerged from the second world war – with the charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the theoretical foundations of the EU and the legal arguments against colonialism – remained marked by deep inequalities. Yet, it represented a decisive attempt to establish an international legal order: an aspiration toward global democracy and peace, grounded in the protection of universal human rights, including not only civil and political, but also economic, social and cultural rights.

Fascism never vanished, but for a time it was held at bay. However, in the past two decades, we have witnessed a renewed wave of far-right movements, often bearing unmistakably fascist traits: attacks on democratic norms and institutions, a reinvigorated nationalism laced with racist rhetoric, authoritarian impulses and systematic assaults on the rights of those who do not fit a manufactured traditional authority, rooted in religious, sexual and gender normativity. These movements have re-emerged across the globe, including in long-standing democracies, where widespread dissatisfaction with political failure to address mounting inequalities and social exclusion has once again been exploited by new authoritarian figures. True to the old fascist script, under the guise of an unlimited popular mandate, these figures undermine national and international rule of law, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, institutions of culture, higher education and science, even attempting to destroy essential data and scientific information. They fabricate “alternative facts” and invent “enemies within”; they weaponise security concerns to entrench their authority and that of the ultra-wealthy 1%, offering privileges in exchange for loyalty.

This process is now accelerating, as dissent is increasingly suppressed through arbitrary detentions, threats of violence, deportations and an unrelenting campaign of disinformation and propaganda, operated with the support of traditional and social media barons – some merely complacent, others openly techno-fascist enthusiasts.

Democracies are not flawless: they are vulnerable to misinformation and they are not yet sufficiently inclusive. However, democracies by their nature provide fertile ground for intellectual and cultural progress and therefore always have the potential to improve. In democratic societies, human rights and freedoms can expand, the arts flourish, scientific discoveries thrive and knowledge grow. They grant the freedom to challenge ideas and question power structures, propose new theories even when culturally uncomfortable, which is essential to human advancement. Democratic institutions offer the best framework for addressing social injustices, and the best hope to fulfil the post-war promises of the rights to work, education, health, social security, participation in cultural and scientific life, and the collective right of peoples to development, self-determination and peace. Without this, humanity faces stagnation, growing inequality, injustice and catastrophe, not least from the existential threat caused by the climate emergency that the new fascist wave negates.

In our hyper-connected world, democracy cannot exist in isolation. As national democracies require strong institutions, international cooperation relies on the effective implementation of democratic principles and multilateralism to regulate relations among nations, and on multistakeholder processes to engage a healthy society. The rule of law must extend beyond borders, ensuring that international treaties, human rights conventions and peace agreements are respected. While existing global governance and international institutions require improvement, their erosion in favor of a world governed by raw power, transactional logic and military might is a regression to an era of colonialism, suffering and destruction.

As in 1925, we scientists, philosophers, writers, artists and citizens of the world have a responsibility to denounce and resist the resurgence of fascism in all its forms. We call on all those who value democracy to act:

  • Defend democratic, cultural and educational institutions. Call out abuses of democratic principles and human rights. Refuse pre-emptive compliance.
  • Join collective actions, locally and internationally. Boycott and strike when possible. Make resistance impossible to ignore and costly to repress.
  • Uphold facts and evidence. Foster critical thinking and engage with your communities on these grounds.

This is an ongoing struggle. Let our voices, our work and our principles be a bulwark against authoritarianism. Let this message be a renewed declaration of defiance.

  • Nobel laureates: Eric Maskin, Roger B Myerson, Alvin E Roth, Lars Peter Hansen, Oliver Hart, Daron Acemoglu, Wolfgang Ketterle, John C Mather, Brian P Schmidt, Michel Mayor, Takaaki Kajita, Giorgio Parisi, Pierre Agostini, Joachim Frank, Richard J Roberts, Leland Hartwell, Paul Nurse, Jack W Szostak, Edvard I Moser, May-Britt Moser, Harvey James Alter, Victor Ambros, Gary Ruvkun, Barry James Marshall, Craig Mello, Charles Rice
  • Leading scholars on fascism and democracy: Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Timothy Snyder, Jason Stanley, Claudia Koonz, Mia Fuller, Giovanni De Luna and Andrea Mammone
  • The full list of signatories can be found here

Article republished from the Guardian. The text of the letter is © 2025 Stop Return Fascism.

Image of the original Fascists Mussolini and Hitler.
The original Fascists Mussolini and Hitler
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel's Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don't do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.
UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.
Image of Mussolini & Co hanging out. What happens to Fascists.
Image of Mussolini & Co hanging out. What happens to Fascists.
Continue ReadingWe are Nobel laureates, scientists, writers and artists. The threat of fascism is back

Actuaries and Scientists Warn Climate Shocks Risk ‘Planetary Insolvency’

Spread the love

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Published Jan 16, 2025

Gas company employees work in Malibu, California, after the Palisades Fire destroyed beach homes on January 12, 2025. (Photo: Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

A new report “shows a 50% GDP contraction between 2070 and 2090 unless an alternative course is chartered,” said the lead author.

U.K. actuaries and University of Exeter climate scientists on Thursday warned that “the risk of planetary insolvency looms unless we act decisively” and urged policymakers to “implement realistic and effective approaches to global risk management.”

Actuaries have developed techniques that “underpin the functioning of the global pension market with $55 trillion of assets, and the global insurance market, collecting $8 trillion of premiums annually, to help us manage risk,” Tim Lenton, University of Exeter’s climate change and Earth system science chair, noted in the foreword of a report released Thursday.

Planetary Solvency—Finding Our Balance With Nature is the fourth report for which the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) has collaborated with climate scientists. In financial terms, solvency is the ability of people or companies to pay their long-term debts. Co-authors of one of the previous publications coined the phrase planetary solvency, “setting out the idea that financial risk management techniques could be adapted to help society manage climate change and other risks.”

Three IFoA leaders—Kalpana Shah, Paul Sweeting, and Kartina Tahir Thomson—explained in their introduction to the latest report how “planetary solvency applies these techniques to the Earth system,” writing:

The essentials that support our society and economy all flow from the Earth system, commodities such as food, water, energy, and raw materials. The Earth system regulates the climate and provides a breathable atmosphere, it is the foundation that underpins our society and economy. Planetary solvency assesses the Earth system’s ability to continue supporting us, informed by planetary boundaries, tipping points in the Earth system, and other scientific discoveries to assess risks to this foundation—and thus to our society and the economy.

Our illustrative assessment of planetary solvency in this report shows a more fundamental, policy-led change of direction is required. Our current market-led approach to mitigating climate and nature risks is not delivering. There is an increasing risk of severe societal disruption (planetary insolvency), as our economic system drives further global warming and nature degradation.

“Impacts are already severe with unprecedented fires, floods, heatwaves, storms, and droughts,” the document points out, emphasizing that human activity—particularly burning fossil fuels—drives climate change and biodiversity loss. “If unchecked they could become catastrophic, including loss of capacity to grow major staple crops, multimeter sea-level rise, altered climate patterns, and a further acceleration of global warming.”

The report was released as wildfires ravage California and shortly after scientific bodies around the world concluded that 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first in which the average global temperature exceeded a key goal of the Paris agreement: 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. In the United States, experts identified 27 disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion.

“We risk triggering tipping points such as Greenland ice sheet melt, coral reef loss, Amazon forest dieback, and major ocean current disruption,” the new publication warns, adding that “tipping points can trigger each other,” and if multiple are triggered, “there may be a point of no return, after which it may be impossible to stabilize the climate.”

Food system shocks and more frequent and devastating disasters increase the risk of mass mortality for humanity—including due to hunger and infectious diseases—along with mass migration and conflict, the report highlights.

“Climate change risk assessment methodologies understate economic impact, as they often exclude many of the most severe risks that are expected and do not recognize there is a risk of ruin,” the document stresses. “They are precisely wrong, rather than being roughly right.”

Specifically, lead author and IFoA council member Sandy Trust said in a statement, “widely used but deeply flawed assessments of the economic impact of climate change show a negligible impact” on gross domestic product (GDP).

However, Trust continued, “the risk-led methodology, set out in the report, shows a 50% GDP contraction between 2070 and 2090 unless an alternative course is chartered.”

To mitigate the risk of planetary insolvency, the co-authors called on policymakers around the world to implement independent, annual assessments; set limits and thresholds that respect the planet’s boundaries; enhance governance structures to support planetary solvency; and “enhance policymaker understanding of ecological interdependencies, tipping points, and systemic risks so they understand why these changes are needed.”

They also underscored the need to limit global warming and avoid triggering tipping points with actions such as accelerating decarbonization, removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, restoring damaged ecosystems, and building resilience.

“You can’t have an economy without a society, and a society needs somewhere to live,” said Trust. “Nature is our foundation… Threats to the stability of this foundation are risks to future human prosperity which we must take action to avoid.”

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.

Continue ReadingActuaries and Scientists Warn Climate Shocks Risk ‘Planetary Insolvency’

‘Chaos and Fear’ at CDC Amid Order to Retract Journal Articles to Purge ‘Forbidden Terms’

Spread the love

Original article by Olivia Rosane republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

“How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality? That reality needs to be named,” one journal editor said.

Employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been ordered to pull any articles under consideration for publication in medical or scientific journals so that they can be checked for certain “forbidden terms” including gender, transgender, and LGBT.

The order was sent in an email to CDC division heads on Friday by the agency’s chief science officer, a federal official told Reuters on Sunday. Inside Medicine broke the news on Saturday and provided a screenshot of the full list of terms that needed to be scrubbed.

“It sounds incredible that this is compatible with the First Amendment. A constitutional right has been canceled,” Dr. Alfredo Morabia, editor in chief of the American Journal of Public Health, told Reuters. “How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality? That reality needs to be named.”

“We can’t just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV.”

The order is an attempt to ensure that CDC is in compliance with U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order mandating that the U.S. government only recognize two sexes: male and female. The papers will be withdrawn so that a Trump appointee can review them.

The “forbidden terms” CDC employees are supposed to avoid are, in full: Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, and biologically female, according to Inside Medicine.

https://twitter.com/luckytran/status/1885875478998757696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1885875478998757696%7Ctwgr%5E95546c059e1c7bd2075c279f4cca9a3e5be4c2a9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-cdc

[In the spirit of the new authoritarian censorship] Sorry, this content could not be embedded.
X

The order covers both papers under considerations and ones that have been accepted but not published. If a CDC employee worked on a paper with nongovernmental scientists but did not initiate it, they have been asked to remove their names, according to Reuters.

The new order is separate from a demand two days into the administration that government health agencies including CDC freeze all communications with the public. It follows reports on Friday that CDC webpages and datasets involving HIV, the LGBTQ community, youth health, and other topics were no longer accessible as the agency attempts to comply with the Trump executive order on transgender identity and another on banning government Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.

https://twitter.com/luckytran/status/1885886530494906521?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1885886530494906521%7Ctwgr%5E95546c059e1c7bd2075c279f4cca9a3e5be4c2a9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-cdc

“It is Orwellian, it really is,” Steven Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center on Society and Health, told The Washington Post of the website purges. “The fact that so many websites are being scrubbed, it is an alarming development and endangers public policy and makes it difficult for decision-makers around the country, including doctors like myself, to make informed choices.”

https://twitter.com/luckytran/status/1885398673254662435?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1885398673254662435%7Ctwgr%5E95546c059e1c7bd2075c279f4cca9a3e5be4c2a9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-cdc

[In the spirit of the new authoritarian censorship] Sorry, this content could not be embedded.
X

In response to the purges, scientists, science journalists, and public health advocates have worked to preserve the datasets, with everything on the CDC website as of January 27, 2024 preserved at ACASignups.net and downloaded data sets also available on Jessica Valenti’s Substack Abortion, Every Day.

“Censoring data on ideological grounds is wrong. It is unscientific, and it is designed to eliminate opposition and erase dissidents,” virologist Angela Rasmussen, who was involved with the data preservation efforts, wrote on social media.

The journal article retraction order has created uncertainty and confusion at the agency, Inside Medicine reported:

How many manuscripts are affected is unclear, but it could be many. Most manuscripts include simple demographic information about the populations or patients studied, which typically includes gender (and which is frequently used interchangeably with sex). That means just about any major study would fall under the censorship regime of the new policy, including studies on Covid-19, cancer, heart disease, or anything else, let alone anything that the administration considers to be “woke ideology.”

Meanwhile, chaos and fear are already guiding decisions. While the policy is only meant to apply to work that might be seen as conflicting with President Trump’s executive orders, CDC experts don’t know how to interpret that. Do papers that describe disparities in health outcomes fall into “woke ideology” or not? Nobody knows, and everyone is scared that they’ll be fired. This is leading to what Germans call “vorauseilender Gehorsam,” or “preemptive obedience,” as one non-CDC scientist commented.

There are also concerns that censoring such a broad list of terms would have unintended consequences for public health.

“We can’t just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV. I certainly hope this is not the intent of these orders,” Carl Schmid, the executive director of the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, told Reuters.

Original article by Olivia Rosane republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Donald Trump decrees forbidden terms denying sexual diversity
Donald Trump decrees forbidden terms denying sexual diversity
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue Reading‘Chaos and Fear’ at CDC Amid Order to Retract Journal Articles to Purge ‘Forbidden Terms’

Climate change made LA fires worse, scientists say

Spread the love

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qy4knd8wo

Climate change was a major factor behind the hot, dry weather that gave rise to the devastating LA fires, a scientific study has confirmed.

It made those weather conditions about 35% more likely, according to World Weather Attribution – globally recognised for their studies linking extreme weather to climate change.

The authors noted that the LA wildfire season is getting longer while the rains that normally put out the blazes have reduced.

The scientists highlight that these wildfires are highly complex with multiple factors playing a role, but they are confident that a warming climate is making LA more prone to intense fire events.

“Climate change increased the risk of the devastating LA wildfires,” said Dr Clair Barnes, from Imperial College London, the study’s lead author.

“Drought conditions are more frequently pushing into winter, increasing the chance a fire will break out during strong Santa Ana winds that can turn small ignitions into deadly infernos.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qy4knd8wo

Continue ReadingClimate change made LA fires worse, scientists say

Do aliens exist? We studied what scientists really think

Spread the love
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

Peter Vickers, Durham University; Henry Taylor, University of Birmingham, and Sean McMahon, University of Edinburgh

News stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is “only a matter of time”, we were told in September 2023. “We are close” was a headline from September 2024.

It’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, published in Nature Astronomy, we’ve found out.

During February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists.

In total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe.

Less than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there.

Scientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists.

When we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms.

These results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist.

Optimists and pessimists

Are scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral”, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating.

Only 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe.

We have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons Europa and Enceladus, and arguably also the environment a few kilometres below the surface of Mars. It also seems relevant that Mars used to be highly habitable, with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere.

It is reasonable to generalise from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy, and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life – it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started (abiogenesis) is clearly non-zero.

This can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly weak consensus. Consider the numbers: there are more than 100 billion galaxies. And we know that habitable environments are everywhere.

Let’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe.

Thus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing.

Bearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and didn’t want to take a stance. In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%.

This move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, it is often called “satisficing”.

As the geophysicist Edward Bullard wrote back in 1975 while debating whether all continents were once joined together, instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data”. Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard – it is the easy choice.

Getting the balance right

What we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe.

We know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered.

Perhaps – given the problem of satisficing – whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result.

Each perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers – and being transparent about their contexts – is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses.

Peter Vickers, Professor in Philosophy of Science, Durham University; Henry Taylor, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, and Sean McMahon, Reader in Astrobiology, University of Edinburgh

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingDo aliens exist? We studied what scientists really think