In a world increasingly in a state of change, there is one certainty: no company will survive without investing in both sustainability and technology. This simple yet【C1】_____equation is derived from a collision of pressure points—all of which will be under a global【C2】______at COP28 in Dubai in December.

The world’s【C3】_____to Net Zero by 2050, the biggest challenge in modern history, is a rallying【C4】__for companies to rethink how they【C5】__their sustainability agendas with technology innovation. Getting this right will【C6】__a massive relief valve for the rapid developing【C7】_____on the worldwide system.

Companies are being asked to do their【C8】_____to simultaneously protect the planet, safeguard society and stabilise the economy, including【C9】__security. This comes against a backdrop of a【C10】__global population, reaching 10 billion by 2050, and rapidly expanding resource-hungry middle classes. Geopolitical instability and an excess of climate crises【C11】_____the tension worldwide.

We live in【C12】_____times, often facing more questions as answers. Better【C13】__technologies will help all governments and companies put both stability and agility in the【C14】__of our journey to Net Zero, which【C15】_____supporting Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics.

One of the low【C16】_____, yet deeply impactful, fruits is mobile phone technology. There are more mobile phones in the world than people, 【C17】__the World Economic Forum (WEF). This vastly【C18】__and affordable tool can promote sustainability amongst today’s global population of 8 billion people with a few swipes on the screen. From scanning products to identify carbon and water footprints, to【C19】__green education online, to monitoring your transport CO₂emissions—all have an【C20】_____impact in real time.

Barely 18 months have elapsed since the former Transport Secretary Grant Shapps unveiled the blueprint for a “revolutionary” Great British Railways, but it already has the flavour of an optimistic misnomer. Even an adequate British railway would be welcomed by those passengers stranded by everything from Avanti’s collapse to failing infrastructure and unprecedented strikes.

Rail’s financial structures, credited by proponents of privatization with revitalizing the industry for 25 years, have been ripped up. The pandemic played a hugely damaging role, prompting the blanket scrapping of franchising as passenger revenue disappeared. But COVID-19 arguably only accelerated the death of a system that was already acknowledged to be falling apart.

The Williams-Shapps review, commissioned back in 2018, long discussing and long delayed, ended up with the proposed creation of Great British Railways—a guiding mind, bringing together Network Rail and train operators, issuing better contracts, with sensible fares and ticketing, putting passengers first and independent of government micromanagement. Few in the industry argued with the conclusions. But few now are sure exactly when—or if—they will be followed through.

Even before Shapps departed, the Department for Transport’s officials found themselves in an unexpected battle. A year after the plan was released, fundamental aspects were not agreed with the Treasury. Civil servants have grown increasingly disillusioned with progress, despite the millions spent, the time invested, and the teams of consultants employed.

The announcement of headquarters of GBR is apparently one of the first in the in-tray of new transport secretary, Anne-Marie Trevelyan—even if rail’s wider suffering may not end soon. But, as one rail source puts it: “Something’s got to give. The industry’s in a complete mess, there’s no certainty. GBR was meant to be the future. Delaying it is just prolonging the paralysis.”

The mini-budget unveiled by the Chancellor is unlikely to help: announcing plans to stop strikes and hamper unions asking for a cost-of-living pay rise, while effectively raising the pay of bosses across the negotiating table—let alone its wider economic effects on the industry. The promise to “accelerate infrastructure schemes”, such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, listed vaguely at No. 96 in the appendix of the growth plan, received a sceptical welcome from an industry which has waited years for a basic pipeline of works to be updated. Those closer to the flagship schemes already approved, such as East-West Rail, are already hinting they are more likely to be abandoned.

Reform may instead come from a different political direction: Labour, leading strongly in the polls since Friday, reaffirmed at conference its commitment to Re-nationalization of rail as train operators’ contracts expire. Unless GBR is up and running by 2024, it may find it has run out of track.

Nestled between hotels and conference centers, a short walk from the Las Vegas strip, is a giant, wide-eyed emoji. Sometimes it is an enormous, hyper-realistic eyeball, a basketball or a circle of flames. The Sphere, a remarkable new concert venue, is 366 feet (110 meters) tall and 516 wide; an LED screen spanning almost 600,000 square feet covers the exterior. Inside, enveloping the 17,500 seats, is another vast, ultra-high-resolution screen. This pleasuredome offers an experience unlike any other. It also raises questions about the future of live entertainment.

To some extent, the Sphere represents a major development in an existing trend of the arts becoming more immersive. Exhibitions that turn the paintings of Monet or Van Gogh into interactive, room-encompassing installations have proliferated in recent years, as have immersive theatre productions. Virtual-reality technology has improved significantly.

Is this the future of the concert? In the short term, no. The sheer cost of the Sphere—$2.3bn—means that the model cannot be easily reproduced. Its ostentation is also a barrier: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, recently vetoed a sister Sphere in the city, calling it “bulky, unduly dominant and incompatible”. Sphere Entertainment Company, the owner, hopes to build other similar constructions and is in “serious” talks for an arena in Abu Dhabi. But negotiations regarding Spheres in Saudi Arabia and South Korea have stalled.

The Sphere does mark a bullish bet on the future of live music, however. The biggest acts have long had to make do with sports stadiums with low-quality sound effects, but this is a spacious, purpose-built venue. There seems to be plenty of demand for lavish productions by the biggest hitmakers: witness the billions of dollars in revenue made by Beyonce’s “Renaissance” and Taylor Swift’s “Eras” tours.

According to Luminate, an analytics firm, in 2023 consumers spent 91% more on live music events than the year before and attended 32% more concerts. Goldman Sachs predicts the market for live music will grow by 5% this year to reach nearly $40bn annually by 2030.

This growth is not just driven by repressed demand from the pandemic. Youngsters, who prefer to spend their money on experiences than on items, consider concerts good value, even when they are pricey. “People still want to have that experience of liveness,” says Steve Waksman, a concert historian, regardless of whether, as at the Sphere, it is “mediated” through screens. To some, the Sphere may be more bewildering than beautiful, but one thing is clear: the future of concerts is as rosy as the trademark glasses of Bono, the lead vocalist of band U2, who opened the Sphere in September, 2023.

It is no surprise to learn that doctors in England are increasingly prescribing antidepressants to children, breaking National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The pressures on children’s mental health services mean that accessing specialist treatment on the NHS is harder than ever before. Similarly, a decision by NICE to recommend the use of cognitive behavioural therapy apps, as a treatment for young people, points to the lack of any other way to meet rising demand.

The NHS’s guidelines are clear: under-18s should only be prescribed antidepressants in conjunction with talking therapies, and with the approval of a psychiatrist. The sole exception is in cases of obsessive compulsive disorder. But long waiting lists and unmanageable caseloads mean that many children are struggling to access the kind of help they need—and the kind of attention from qualified professionals that is most likely to make them better. Staff in overstretched children and adolescent mental health services describe a situation in which almost all clinicians’ time is spent identifying problems and managing risks—and very little of it directly helping children.

Thresholds for referring patients have been raised so high, with a view to conserving scarce resources, that in some cases children who are seriously distressed, or in danger, have been refused care because they do not meet criteria. The government is facing demands for a public inquiry, after an investigation found that three teenage girls were failed by a mental health hospital in north-east England. Maria Caulfield, the minister for mental health, acknowledges that this sequence of events was not a one-off, and the families are right to insist that lessons must be learned.

But no inquiry is needed to establish that children’s mental health services are at— and in some cases beyond—breaking point. Where budgets have been increased, they have in many cases been used to employ education mental health practitioners (EMHPs), working in support teams, with just 60 days’ worth of training. Such staff can make a contribution. But they are not qualified to deal with the kinds of complex conditions and home circumstances that growing numbers of young people are dealing with.

Some young people may be helped by the new apps, although the evidence so far is weak and the recommendation is pending a consultation. There may be occasions where a child’s doctor sees no alternative to an antidepressant prescription. But the NICE guidelines are evidence-based and exist for a reason. If children are so unwell that a doctor believes they need pills, the NHS ought to be able to refer them for talking therapy. After the disruption to education caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, prompt diagnosis and treatment of young people with mental health conditions should be a national priority. The next generation must be helped to grow up healthy.

We all know how to lose weight. It is simple: eat less, move more. This sounds logical enough on the surface. The problem is, within this “calories in, calories out” message there is an implied meaning: if you can’t follow these instructions, you must be lazy or lacking self-discipline. Of course, this doesn’t reflect reality. There is plenty of evidence showing that losing weight isn’t easy and that it is rarely sustained in the long term. How heavy we are isn’t solely under personal control, as our genetics and environment have a huge impact.

And yet weight stigma, which describes the negative attitudes, discrimination and harmful stereotypes directed towards people with larger bodies, is mainly predicated on this personal control narrative. That narrative, say researchers, has an insidious effect on the well-being and health of people labelled as “obese”.

There is a view that this stigma motivates people to improve health. But for those who experience it, the opposite can be the case. They have increased risks of depression and suicidality and report poorer self-esteem. It is also linked to higher levels of the inflammatory C-reactive protein, which is associated with stress and can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Shaming people for their size can even lead to weight gain. Such stigma is linked to overeating, as it may activate a threat response: increased anxiety and stress because of feeling judged and devalued by others. People who feel less capable of controlling their intake may turn to comfort eating when they sense threat, says Erin Standen, who studies weight stigma at the University of Minnesota. That isn’t all. She also explains that people with larger bodies often try to defend themselves against this threat in a way that once again risks their health—they might stop exercising in public due to negative comments.

Another consequence of weight stigma is healthcare avoidance. A weight-centric approach by doctors can create mistrust between patient and physician and even lead to delays in cancer screenings. A survey found those who felt bad about their own weight believed doctors didn’t respect them or listen carefully enough to their health concerns. “Too often, patients feel blamed for their weight by healthcare providers,” says Rebecca Puhl at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut. To change this, rather than making it all about weight loss, doctors can emphasise other positive changes, such as mobility improvements, to help healthcare become more weight-inclusive, says Puhl. This will help people feel empowered, not stigmatised.

Such stigma is in all parts of society, and healthcare won’t become weight-neutral until public attitudes also change. Ending the view that “obesity” is a personal failure of willpower is difficult. But we need to recognise that focusing so much time, energy and money on the “war against obesity” in the way we have has inadvertently created a new public health problem.

When he was two years old, Ben stopped seeing out of his left eye, and soon his vision was gone forever. But by the time he was seven years old, he had devised a technique for decoding the world around him: he clicked with his mouth and listened for the returning echoes.【G1】_____________________________

Echolocation may sound like an incredible feat for a human, but thousands of blind people have perfected this skill, just like Ben did. Then how could blindness give rise to the stunning ability to understand the surroundings with one’s ears? The answer lies in a gift bestowed on the brain by evolution: tremendous adaptability.

【G2】_____________________________Neurons, the cells responsible for rapidly processing information in the brain, are interconnected by the thousands—but like friendships in a community, the connections between them constantly change: strengthening, weakening, and finding new partners. The field of neuroscience calls this phenomenon “brain plasticity,” referring to the ability of the brain, like plastic, to assume new shapes and hold them. More recent discoveries in neuroscience suggest that the brain’s brand of flexibility is far more sophisticated than holding onto a shape, though. To capture this, we refer to the brain’s plasticity as “livewiring” to spotlight how this vast system of 86 billion neurons and 0.2 quadrillion connections rewires itself every moment of your life.

【G3】___________________________But more recent discoveries have failed to cohere with the old theory. One part of the brain may initially be assigned a specific task; for instance, the back of our brain is called the “visual cortex” because it usually handles sight.【G4】__________________________But in the sightless, these same neurons can rewire themselves to process other types of information.

Mother Nature endowed our brains with flexibility to adapt to circumstances. Just as sharp teeth and fast legs are useful for survival, so is the brain’s ability to reconfigure. The brain’s livewiring allows for learning, memory, and the ability to develop new skills.

【G5】_____________________________In one study, sighted participants intensively learned how to read Braille. Half the participants were blindfolded throughout the experience. At the end of the five days, the participants who wore blindfolds could distinguish subtle differences between Braille characters much better than the participants who didn’t wear blindfolds. Even more remarkably, the blindfolded participants showed activation in visual brain regions in response to touch and sound. After the blindfold was removed, the visual cortex returned to normal within a day, no longer responding to touch and sound.

But such changes don’t have to take five days; that just happened to be when the measurement took place. When blindfolded participants are continuously measured, touch-related activity shows up in the visual cortex in about an hour.

[A] Neuroscience used to think that different parts of the brain were predetermined to perform specific functions.

[B] As a result, Ben had more neurons available to deal with auditory information, and this increased processing power allowed Ben to interpret soundwaves in shocking detail.

[C] Recent decades have yielded several revelations about livewiring, but perhaps the biggest surprise is its rapidity. Brain circuits reorganize not only in the newly blind, but also in the sighted who have temporary blindness.

[D] Whenever we learn something new, pick up a new skill, or modify our habits, the physical structure of our brain changes.

[E] We suggest that the brain preserves the territory of the visual cortex by keeping it active at night. In our “defensive activation theory,” dream sleep exists to keep neurons in the visual cortex active, thereby combating a takeover by the neighboring senses.

[F] This method enabled Ben to determine the locations of open doorways, people, parked cars, garbage cans, and so on. He was echolocating: bouncing his sound waves off objects in the environment and catching the reflections to build a mental model of his surroundings.

[G] But that territory can be reassigned to a different task. There is nothing special about neurons in the visual cortex: they are simply neurons that happen to be involved in processing shapes or colors in people who have functioning eyes.

“How can a nation founded on the homelands of dispossessed Indigenous peoples be the world’s most exemplary democracy?” This is the provocative question with which Ned Blackhawk opens his important new book, “The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History.“【T1】A historian at Yale and a tribe member of North American Indian group, Blackhawk rejects the myth that Native Americans fell quick and easy victims to European invaders. Instead, he asserts that “American Indians were central to every century of U.S. historical development.”

Despite this promising premise, “The Rediscovery of America” gets off to a slow start by keeping on discussing a straw man: “historians” who have neglected the American Indian past because they have been strongly influenced by the notions of “the superiority of Europeans” that “have bred exclusion and misunderstanding.” Who are these bad historians? Blackhawk’s introduction identifies only two, one of them dead.

【T2】In fact, this book benefits from Blackhawk’s wide and insightful reading of the many scholars who, during the last 50 years, have restored Native peoples to their prominent place within a fuller, richer American history.

【T3】In the early chapters Blackhawk’s book lacks cohesion and flow, looping back and forth in time with much repetition as he considers the first three centuries after Columbus. Here he tells a now familiar story: Claiming religious and cultural superiority, European invaders slaughtered many Native peoples and dispossessed them of their land.

Despite heavy losses and dispossession along the coasts, Native peoples still controlled most of the continental interior until the 19th century. They persisted by adapting creatively to new challenges. Some formed new confederations to practice a shrewd diplomacy, playing rival European powers against one another. During the 18th century, Native nations on the Great Plains took horses from the Spanish and obtained firearms from the French to remake their way of life around bison hunting.【T4】Within a few generations, their populations surged, reversing two centuries of decline as they drove back Spanish colonists in New Mexico and Texas. Myth casts Indians as primitive peoples incapable of coping with allegedly superior invaders. In fact, Natives innovated within a framework of tradition and sovereignty meant to preserve their distinctive identities.

In the later chapters, “The Rediscovery of America” offers an eloquent and moving story of Native recovery during the 20th century.【T5】As Blackhawk’s narrative reaches our current day, he shows how Native Americans continue to express the duality fundamental to their way of life: an ability to manage change while preserving identity, traditions and sovereignty.