 |
|
|
|||||
Its 9:30 p.m. Snack time. A sacred fourth meal, when I pull out my handwash-only kobachi and drop in a small handful of Blue Diamond Smokehouse almonds. Ive been eating them for more years than I care to admit, appreciating the mix of natural (high protein and fiber) almonds with a splash of addictive processing (mmm, hickory smoke flavor and maltodextrin) to keep them feeling dangerous. Its the perfect portion of the perfect snack in the perfect bowl. Almost. [Image: Blue Diamond] The problem with Blue Diamond Smokehouse isnt the product. Its the packaging. Specifically, the Ziploc-esque “resealable zipper stops working, like clockwork, when Im about halfway through the bag. The plastic zip itself seems to hold too strongly, so that inevitably, theres a point when I open the bag, and the heat-sealed weld gives out. The zip stays zipped, but now its attached to only one side of the bag. ONE SIDE!!! A bag that now gapes open, possibly in shock from my own ineptitude in opening and closing a snack. I know its not my fault. Its the damn dysfunctional bag. But like dropping a cheap glass, Im left with an unnecessary burden of guilt. Was it something I did, Blue Diamond?? I can change! Ill do better next time! (I never do.) WHY DOES NOTHING EVER GO RIGHT IN MY LIFE????!?? WHY DO I DRIVE ALL SOURCES OF MONOUNSATURATED FATS AWAY??!??! From there on out, Im left with this domestic conundrum: Shove the almonds into another bag (feels wasteful, and the powder is gonna stick to everything)or curse . . . curl the bag up the best I can . . . and wedge it between two canned goods to keep it from springing open. Inevitably, I choose the latter. But more air gets in over the coming weeks. The smoky almonds grow stale. This sounds dramatic. I am being dramatic! But also, cmon: 3 gallons of water go into each nut. That means my 25-ounce pack represents 2,100 gallons of water. And Blue Diamond cant even take the time to make sure that so much investment isnt leaking all over my pantry. Resealable packs suck To be fair, Blue Diamond is far from the only culprit when it comes to poorly built zips. Since the late 1980s, resealable bags have taken over supermarket shelves for products including nuts, pre-shredded cheese, and frozen nuggets. Into the 1990s, these technologies were largely perfected to replace boxed goods with soft packaging in pyramidic forms, creating bags with a wide bottom and thin top that stood up and stood out on the shelf. Despite decades of manufacturing innovations, resealable packs can still be stupidly hard to cut open without hitting the zip. Bits of food can clog the seals. And, more and more, Im noticing how one side of the zip can inevitably fail, as with Blue Diamond, leaving the pack less than airtight. But when they work, its the best UX that the American supermarket has to offer (dont get me started on self-checkout!), inevitably helping to keep food fresh and reduce food waste. As much as 40% of Americas food is thrown away each year. And resealable packs help reduce this numberall without introducing more packaging (looking at you, Ziploc!) to solve the problem. So consider this an open call for Blue Diamond, and all those making suss resealable products, to rethink their packaging. We must have the technology to actually seal bags shut . . . again . . . and again.
Category:
E-Commerce
Below, Jay Belsky shares five key insights from his new book, The Nature of Nurture: Rethinking Why and How Childhood Adversity Shapes Development. Belsky is emeritus professor of human development at the University of California, Davis. Whats the big idea? Seen through an evolutionary lens, early adversity can shape development in adaptive ways. And because children differ in their sensitivity to their environments, early experiences may matter a lot for some and much less for others. Listen to the audio version of this Book Biteread by Belsky himselfin the Next Big Idea app. 1. A radically transformed understanding of development It is beyond dispute that the Hubble Telescope, launched in 1990 (to say nothing of the James Webb Space Telescope launched 11 years later), radically transformed our understanding of the universe. To virtually everyone involved in the life sciences, Charles Darwins theory of adaptation by natural selection in the mid-19th century and William Hamiltons insights on kin selection and inclusive fitness in the mid-20th century have functioned much like these recent telescopic wonders in understanding life on planet Earth. This is true not simply with respect to human nature, as long highlighted by many evolutionary-minded scholars, but specifically with respect to why, how, and for whom early-life conditions shape, or fail to shape, child, adolescent, and even adult development. 2. Childhood adversity looks different when cast in evolutionary perspective What stimulated the radical shift in my thinking some three decades ago was the realization that the prevailing, mainstream view of development I cut my teeth on reflected an idealized, romanticized view of the human condition: Good experiences foster well-being, whereas bad things lead to disorder, dysregulation, and dysfunction. Putting on evolutionary lenses made me realize that because childhood adversityin the form, for example, of threat and deprivationwas not uncommon over the course of human history, the ways children develop in response to it likely evolved and reflect adaptation rather than problematic functioning, as so long presumed. Critically, adaptations evolve because they increase, directly or indirectly, the chances of an individual reproducing, that is, passing on genes to future generations, the ultimate goal of all living things. Thirty years after first coming to view life on Earth through an evolutionary-developmental, or evo-devo, perspective, I find it astonishing that the discoveries this perspective led to remain extremely underappreciatedby developmental scholars, clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike. While genetics has been how nature has been conceptualized for decades in nature and nurture thinking and research, evolution itself has been more or less ignored, especially with regard to the effects of early life on later development. 3. Early-life adversity accelerates development Early-life adversity should accelerate development, resulting in earlier pubertal maturation than would otherwise be expected. Because adversity can result not just in compromised functioning, but early death, accelerating sexual maturity, I theorized that adversity would have increased the chances of our ancestors successfully passing on genesdespite the fact that early puberty carries health and longevity risks. The perhaps sad truth is that evolution privileges reproduction more than health, wealth, and happiness, though these can serve as means to that end under some conditions. 4. Children differ in their susceptibility to environmental effects The future is, and always has been, uncertain, making it somewhat unpredictable. This means that developing in a manner consistent with the nurture a child experiences, whether adverse or supportive, could undermine the passing on of genes if and when the future environment proves substantially different from the one the child was prepared for. This realization led me to predict that children would vary in their developmental plasticity, that is, susceptibility to environmental influenceswhat I labeled the differential-susceptibility hypothesis. Whereas some would be strongly shaped by their early-life conditionsfor better and for worseas those emphasizing nurture have long argued, others would be far less so, as those emphasizing genetic nature have long asserted. By implication, then, those most vulnerable or susceptible to the negative effects of adversity would, at the same time, prove most susceptible to the beneficial effects of support and nurturance. Conversely, those who prove resilient in the face of adversity, so as not to succumb to its pernicious effects, would also prove less susceptible to the developmental benefits of support and nurturance. Clearly, then, the benefits and costs of being more or less developmentally plastic depend on the quality of the development context to which the child is exposed early in life. Being resilient is a benefit, for example, in the face of adversity, but a cost in the face of support and nurturance. 5. Implications of evo-devo thinking One implication of evolutionary thinking aligns with mainstream developmental thought: If we dont like the effects of adversity on development, given prevailing values, we can intervene to reduce these anticipated risks, and probably the earlier, the better. At the same time, we need to appreciate the second implication that even the most successful such efforts will fail to benefit, or benefit modestly, many childrenbecause they are less developmentally plastic. Factors that shape susceptibility to environmental influences include genetics, early temperament, and physiology. The Nature of Nurture challenges long-standing ways of thinking about human development, the role of the environment, as well as genetics, while advancing a 21st-century way of thinking about why and how early life conditions doand do notshape later life by underscoring evolution and thus natural selection, adaptation, and reproduction. Enjoy our full library of Book Bitesread by the authors!in the Next Big Idea app. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
Across Appalachia, rust-colored water seeps from abandoned coal mines, staining rocks orange and coating stream beds with metals. These acidic discharges, known as acid mine drainage, are among the regions most persistent environmental problems. They disrupt aquatic life, corrode pipes, and can contaminate drinking water for decades. However, hidden in that orange drainage are valuable metals known as rare earth elements that are vital for many technologies the U.S. relies on, including smartphones, wind turbines, and military jets. In fact, studies have found that the concentrations of rare earths in acid mine waste can be comparable to the amount in ores mined to extract rare earths. Scientists estimate that more than 13,700 miles of U.S. streams, predominantly in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, are contaminated with acid mine discharge. A closer look at acid mine drainage from abandoned mines in Pennsylvania from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission We and our colleagues at West Virginia University have been working on ways to turn the acid waste in those bright orange creeks into a reliable domestic source for rare earths while also cleaning the water. Experiments show extraction can work. If states can also sort out who owns that mine waste, the environmental cost of mining might help power a clean energy future. Rare earths face a supply chain risk Rare earth elements are a group of 17 metals, also classified as critical minerals, that are considered vital to the nations economy or security. Despite their name, rare earth elements are not all that rare. They occur in many places around the planet, but in small quantities mixed with other minerals, which makes them costly and complex to separate and refine. China controls about 70% of global rare earth production and nearly all refining capacity. This near monopoly gives the Chinese government the power to influence prices, export policies, and access to rare earth elements. China has used that power in trade disputes as recently as 2025. The United States, which currently imports about 80% of the rare earth elements it uses, sees Chinas control over these critical minerals as a risk and has made locating domestic sources a national priority. Although the U.S. Geological Survey has been mapping potential locations for extracting rare earth elements, getting from exploration to production takes years. Thats why unconventional sources, like extracting rare earth elements from acid mine waste, are drawing interest. Turning a mine waste problem into a solution Acid mine drainage forms when sulfide minerals, such as pyrite, are exposed to air during mining. This creates sulfuric acid, which then dissolves heavy metals such as copper, lead, and mercury from the surrounding rock. The metals end up in groundwater and creeks, where iron in the mix gives the water an orange color. Expensive treatment systems can neutralize the acid, with the dissolved metals settling into an orange sludge in treatment ponds. For decades, that sludge was treated as hazardous waste and hauled to landfills. But scientists at West Virginia University and the National Energy Technology Laboratory have found that it contains concentrations of rare earth elements comparable to those found in mined ores. These elements are also easier to extract from acid mine waste because the acidic water has already released them from the surrounding rock. Experiments have shown how the metals can be extracted: Researchers collected sludge, separated out rare earth elements using water-safe chemistry, and then returned the cleaner water to nearby streams. It is like mining without digging, turning something harmful into a useful resource. If scaled up, this process could lower cleanup costs, create local jobs, and strengthen Americas supply of materials needed for renewable energy and high-tech manufacturing. But theres a problem: Who owns the recovered minerals? The ownership question Traditional mining law covers minerals underground, not those extracted from water naturally running off abandoned mine sites. Nonprofit watershed groups that treat mine waste to clean up the water often receive public funding meant solely for environmental cleanup. If these groups start selling recovered rare earth elements, they could generate revenue for more stream cleanup projects, but they might also risk violating grant terms or nonprofit rules. To better understand the policy challenges, we surveyed mine water treatment operators across Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The majority of treatment systems were under landowner agreements in which the operators had no permanent property rights. Most operators said ownership uncertainty was one of the biggest barriers to investment in the recovery of rare earth elements, projects that can cost millions of dollars. Not surprisingly, water treatent operators who owned the land where treatment was taking place were much more likely to be interested in rare earth element extraction. West Virginia took steps in 2022 to boost rare earth recovery, innovation, and cleanup of acid mine drainage. A new law gives ownership of recovered rare earth elements to whoever extracts them. So far, the law has not been applied to large-scale projects. Across the border, Pennsylvanias Environmental Good Samaritan Act protects volunteers who treat mine water from liability but says nothing about ownership. This difference matters. Clear rules like West Virginias provide greater certainty, while the lack of guidance in Pennsylvania can leave companies and nonprofits hesitant about undertaking expensive recovery projects. Among the treatment operators we surveyed, interest in rare earth element extraction was twice as high in West Virginia than in Pennsylvania. The economics of waste to value Recovering rare earth elements from mine water wont replace conventional mining. The quantities available at drainage sites are far smaller than those produced by large mines, even though the concentration can be just as high, and the technology to extract them from mine waste is still developing. Still, the use of mine waste offers a promising way to supplement the supply of rare earth elements with a domestic source and help offset environmental costs while cleaning up polluted streams. Early studies suggest that recovering rare earth elements using technologies being developed today could be profitable, particularly when the projects also recover additional critical materials, such as cobalt and manganese, which are used in industrial processes and batteries. Extraction methods are improving, too, making the process safer, cleaner, and cheaper. Government incentives, research funding, and public-private partnerships could speed this progress, much as subsidies support fossil fuel extraction and have helped solar and wind power scale up in providing electricity. Treating acid mine drainage and extracting its valuable rare earth elements offers a way to transform pollution into prosperity. Creating policies that clarify ownership, investing in research, and supporting responsible recovery could ensure that Appalachian communities benefit from this new chapter, one in which cleanup and clean energy advance together. Hélne Nguemgaing is an assistant clinical professor of critical resources and sustainability analytics at the University of Maryland. Alan Collins is a professor of natural resource economics at West Virginia University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As Americans increasingly report feeling overwhelmed by daily life, many are using self-care to cope. Conversations and social media feeds are saturated with the language of me time, burnout, boundaries, and nervous system regulation. To meet this demand, the wellness industry has grown into a multitrillion-dollar global market. Myriad providers offer products, services, and lifestyle prescriptions that promise calm, balance, and restoration. Paradoxically, though, even as interest in self-care continues to grow, Americans mental health is getting worse. I am a professor of public health who studies health behaviors and the gap between intentions and outcomes. I became interested in this self-care paradox recently, after I suffered from a concussion. I was prescribed two months of strictly screen-free cognitive restno television, email, Zooming, social media, streaming, or texting. The benefits were almost immediate, and they surprised me. I slept better, had a longer attention span, and had a newfound sense of mental quiet. These effects reflected a well-established principle in neuroscience: When cognitive and emotional stimuli decrease, the brains regulatory systems can recover from overload and chronic stress. Obviously, most people cant go 100% screen-free for days, much less months, but the underlying principle offers a powerful lesson for practicing effective self-care. A nation under strain Americans self-rated mental health is now at the lowest point since Gallup started tracking this issue in 2001. National surveys consistently detect high levels of stress and emotional strain. Roughly one-third of U.S. adults report feeling overwhelmed most days. Sleep disruption, anxiety, poor concentration, and emotional exhaustion are widespread, particularly among young adults and women. Chronic disease patterns mirror this strain. When daily stress becomes chronic, it can trigger biological changes that increase the risk of long-term conditions like heart disease and diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 6 in 10 U.S. adults live with at least one chronic condition, and 4 in 10 live with multiple chronic conditions. Stress triggers physiological responses that can lead to a range of symptoms. How people try to cope Many Americans say they actively practice self-care in everyday life. For example, they describe taking mental health days, protecting personal time, setting boundaries around work, and prioritizing rest and leisure. The problem lies in how they use that leisure time. Over the past 22 years, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics American Time Use Survey has consistently found that watching television is the most popular leisure activity for U.S. adults. Americans spend far more time watching TV than exercising, spending time with friends or practicing reflection through activities like yoga. Other common self-care activities include watching movies and gaming. Modern leisure time increasingly includes smartphone use. Surveys suggest that mobile phones have become the dominant screen for many Americans, with adults spending several hours per day on their phones. For many adults, checking social media or watching short videos has become a default relaxation behavior layered on top of traditional screen use. This practice is often referred to as second screening. Although many people turn to screen-based activities to wind down, these activities may have the opposite effect biologically. Why modern screen use feels different Pre-internet forms of leisure often involved activities such as watching scheduled television programs, listening to radio broadcasts, or reading books and magazines. For all of these pastimes, the content followed a predictable sequence with natural stopping points. Todays digital media environment looks very different. People routinely engage with multiple screens at once, respond to frequent notifications, and switch rapidly between several streams of content. These environments continuously require users to split their attention, engage their emotions, and make decisions. This type of mental multitasking draws on the same neural systems people are often attempting to rest with leisure. The result is a far more fragmented and cognitively demanding environment than in the past. Americans now spend approximately six to seven hours per day on screens across multiple devices. Splitting attention between more than one screen at a time, such as using the phone while watching television, is common. This juggling exposes peoples brains to multiple streams of sensory and emotional input simultaneously. Survey data also suggests that Americans may check their phones roughly 200 times per day. In doing so, they repeatedly pull their attention back to screens during routine moments. Modern digital platforms are designed to maximize engagement. Algorithms tend to prioritize emotionally arousing content, particularly anger, anxiety, ad outrage. These feelings drive clicks, sharing, and time spent on platforms. Research has shown that this design is associated with higher stress, distraction, and cognitive load. When “rest” doesnt restore Against the backdrop of daily hassles and competing demands, it can feel like relief to flip on the TV. Practices such as streaming or so-called bed-rottingspending extended periods in bed while scrollingoften are framed as a form of radical rest or self-care. Other common coping behaviors include leaving the television on as background noise, scrolling between tasks throughout the day, or using phones during meals and conversations. These strategies can feel restful because they temporarily reduce external demands and decision-making. However, pairing rest with screen use may undermine the very restoration that people are seeking. Digital media stimulate attention, emotion, and sensory processing. Even while people are sitting or lying still, being on-screen can keep their nervous systems in a heightened state of arousal. It may look like downtime, but it doesnt create the biological conditions for restoration. How to wind down Evidence suggests that mental relief comes not from adding new coping strategies, but from reducing the number of demands placed on the brain. Here are some evidence-based strategies that support genuine restoration: Reduce digital multitasking, such as using your phone while watching television. This lowers stress and cognitive strain. Limit task-switching and interruptions. This improves focus and reduces cognitive fatigue. Spend time in low-stimulation environments, including quiet spaces and outdoor settings. This supports mood and emotional well-being. Unwind with analog or low-novelty activities, such as reading print materials, journaling, gentle movement, or device-free walking. These pastimes allow mental engagement without overload. The goal is to intentionally reduce mental load, not to abandon all digital devices. To improve well-being in our overstimulated society, its important to understand the difference between feeling as though you are unwinding and actually allowing your brain and body to recover. In my view, fewer screens, fewer inputs, fewer emotional demands, and more protected time for genuine cognitive rest are important components of an effective wellness strategy. Robin Pickering is a professor and chair of public health at Gonzaga University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Make Denmark angry. Make Norway angry. Make NATOs leaders angry. President Donald Trumps relentless and escalating drive to acquire Greenland from Denmark, whose governmentalong with that of Greenlandemphatically rejects the idea, has unnerved, offended, and outraged leaders of countries considered allies for decades. Its the latest, and perhaps most significant, eruption of an attitude of disdain towards allies that has become a hallmark of the second Trump administration, which has espoused an America First approach to the world. Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have all said a lot of things about longtime allies that have caused frustration and outright friction among the leaders of those countries. The latest discord over Greenland could affect the functioning and even existence of NATO, the post-World War II alliance of Western nations that won the Cold War and led the globe, as a recent Wall Street Journal story put it. As a former diplomat, Im aware that how the U.S. treats its allies has been a crucial question in every presidency, since George Washington became the countrys first chief executive. On his way out of that job, Washington said something that Trump, Vance, and their fellow America First advocates would probably embrace. Above: Ambassador Don Heflin recaps 250 years of American alliances, with their benefits and challenges. In whats known as his Farewell Address, Washington warned Americans against entangling alliances. Washington wanted America to treat all nations fairly, and warned against both permanent friendships and permanent enemies. The irony is that Washington would never have become president without the assistance of the not-yet-United-States first ally, France. In 1778, after two years of brilliant diplomacy by Benjamin Franklin, the not-yet-United States and the Kingdom of France signed a treaty of alliance as the American Colonies struggled to win their war for independence from Britain. France sent soldiers, money, and ships to the American revolutionaries. Within three years, after a major intervention by the French fleet, the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 effectively ended the war, and America was independent. Isolationism, then war American political leaders largely heeded Washingtons warning against alliances throughout the 1800s. The Atlantic Ocean shielded the young nation from Europes problems and many conflicts; Americas closest neighbors had smaller populations and less military might. Aside from the War of 1812, in which the U.S. fought the British, America largely found itself protected from the outside worlds problems. That began to change when Europe descended into the brutality of World War I. Initially, American politicians avoided involvement. What would today be called an isolationist movement was strong; its supporters felt that the European war was being waged for the benefit of big business. But it was hard for the U.S. to maintain neutrality. German submarines sank ships crossing the Atlantic carrying American passengers. The economies of some of Americas biggest trading partners were in shreds; the democracies of Britain, France, and other European countries were at risk. A Boston newspaper headline in 1915 blares the news of a British ocean liner sunk by a German torpedo. [Image: Serial and Government Publications Division, Library of Congress (002.00.00)] President Woodrow Wilson led the U.S. into the war in 1917 as an ally of the Western European nations. When he asked Congress for a declaration of war, Wilson asserted the value of like-minded allies: A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership f democratic nations. Immediately after the war, the Alliesled by the U.S., France, and Britainstayed together to craft the peace agreements, feed the war-ravaged parts of Europe and intervene in Russia after the Communist Revolution there. Prosperity came along with the peace, helping the U.S. quickly develop into a global economic power. However, within a few years, American politicians returned to traditional isolationism in political and military matters and continued this attitude well into the 1930s. The worldwide Great Depression that began in 1929 was blamed on vulnerabilities in the global economy, and there was a strong sentiment among Americans that the U.S. should fix its internal problems rather than assist Europe with its problems. Alliance counters fascism As both Hitler and Japan began to attack their neighbors in the late 1930s, it became clear to President Franklin Roosevelt and other American military and political leaders that the U.S. would get caught up in World War II. If nothing else, airplanes had erased Americas ability to hide behind the Atlantic Ocean. Though public opinion was divided, the U.S. began sending arms and other assistance to Britain and quietly began military planning with London. This was despite the fact that the U.S. was formally neutral, as the Roosevelt administration was pushing the limits of what a neutral nation can do for friendly nations without becoming a warring party. In January of 1941, Roosevelt gave his annual State of the Union speech to Congress. He appeared to prepare the country for possibleboth on behalf of allies abroad and for the preservation of American democracy: The future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors. In times like these it is immatureand incidentally, untruefor anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world. When the Japanese attacked Hawaii in 1941 and Hitler declared war on the U.S., America quickly entered World War II in an alliance with Britain, the Free French and others. Throughout the war, the Allies worked together on matters large and small. They defeated Germany in three and half years and Japan in less than four. As World War II ended, the wartime alliance produced two longer-term partnerships built on the understanding that working together had produced a powerful and effective counter to fascism. Postwar alliances The first of these alliances is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. The original members were the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, and others of the wartime Allies. There are now 32 members, including Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. The aims of NATO were to keep peace in Europe and contain the growing Communist threat from the Soviet Union. NATOs supporters feel that, given that wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and in the Ukraine today are the only major conflicts in Europe in 80 years, the alliance has met its goals well. And NATO troops went to Afghanistan along with the U.S. military after 9/11. The other institution created by the wartime Allies is the United Nations. The U.N. is many thingsa humanitarian aid organization, a forum for countries to raise their issues and a source of international law. However, it is also an alliance. The U.N. Security Council on several occasions authorized the use of force by members, such as in the first Gulf War against Iraq. And it has the power to send peacekeeping troops to conflict areas under the U.N. flag. Other U.S. allies with treaties or designations by Congress include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, three South American countries, and six in the Middle East. Many of the same countries also created institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of American States, and the European Union. The U.S. belongs to all of these except the European Union. During my 35-year diplomatic career, I worked with all of these institutions, particularly in efforts to stabilize Africa. They keep the peace and support development efforts with loans and grants. Admirers of this postwar liberal international order point to the limited number of major armed conflicts during the past 80 years, the globalized economy and international cooperation on important matters such as disease control and fighting terrorism. Detractors point to this systems inability to stop some very deadly conflicts, such as Vietnam or Ukraine, and the large populations that havent done well under globalization as evidence of its flaws. The world would look dramatically different without the Allies victories in the two World Wars, the stable worldwide economic system, and NATO and the U.N. keeping the world relatively peaceful. But the value of allies to Americans, even when they benefit from alliances, appears to have shifted between George Washingtons attitudeavoid themand that o Franklin D. Rooseveltgo all in . . . eventually. This is an updated version of an article originally published on February 20, 2025. Donald Heflin is an executive director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce