The 1975 film “Jaws,” in which a local government hires a shark hunter to protect the town’s tourism industry, delighted me as a 10-year-old. But other than its infamous opening sequence, I don’t recall being scared. My younger sister, however, developed a years-long fear of deep water, even our 11-foot-deep pool. Maybe I’d just cultivated too much shark knowledge, well aware that these apex predators are docile and do not hunt humans like they do in Peter Benchley’s novel. The book and the film — I consumed both and can report that Steven Spielberg’s adaptation is better — only instilled in me a deeper love and respect for sharks. They are still my favorite fish to observe in aquariums or the ocean.

Outside of the movies, shark bounties are uncommon these days. That’s why news this week that Greenland was planning to cull 1,000 Greenland sharks was so alarming to many online. Officials in the Avannaata municipality on the island nation’s west coast approved the plan, offering fishers 300 Danish kroner, or about $45, per shark heart. The government complained that hungry sharks are eating too much Atlantic cod and Greenland halibut, cutting into what humans can bring home and damaging their gear. Lars Erik Gabrielsen, mayor of Avannaata, told The Guardian, “We need to safeguard the income of fishermen and the catch so that we can continue to eat the foods that we have relied on for generations.”

Conservationists and shark lovers were outraged at the proposal. Nick Dulvy, a professor and marine conservationist at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, called it a “disaster” and said that biologically, the sharks are “the most sensitive species in the ocean to overfishing.” Marine ecologist Spencer Roberts, whose advocacy work includes calling out shark poaching, posted on X that “There is a psychotic sense of entitlement spreading around the world that imagines humans own the fish in the sea and demands retaliatory killing of predators who rely on these fish. Even centuries-old sages of the Arctic Ocean are not safe from this deranged human delusion.”

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Indeed, the Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus) is bizarre and misunderstood, basically being the couch potato of the depths of the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean, where waters are just above freezing. Known as an abyssal species, it slothfully trawls the shadows like some mournful Lovecraftian being, possessing an especially sluggish metabolism, which isn’t surprising considering its size. Greenland sharks weigh in at one ton and reaching up to 23 feet in length. The maximum lifespan can average 400 years, the longest lifespan of any known vertebrate, meaning there are apparently Greenland sharks that are older than the United States. If that doesn’t blow you out of the water, I don’t know what will. Humans are famously bad at mentally fathoming deep time, so thinking about these ghostly rotund things hiding in the dark of the ocean, outliving empires like an ichthyological Ozymandias, fills me with even more awe than most sharks do.

In a rare spot of good news, the local government dropped the plan after national officials questioned its legality, but a future cull hasn’t been ruled out. Still, it’s worth upholding this turnaround as an example of why speaking out on animal rights can be successful. We don’t need to just sit back and watch the extinction of any species that doesn’t directly benefit us, while of course recognizing that fishers have to eat too. Some have proposed reimbursing fishers or using acoustic deterrents instead of mass slaughter.

But it’s more than just Greenland sharks at risk, with an estimated 79 million sharks dying in fisheries in 2019. At least 25 million of those species are threatened. As coral reefs struggle to survive, many sharks are losing their main food source, but humans are to blame for that one. These animals can be dangerous, same as a grizzly bear or elephant, but people tend to value sharks a lot less. This is in spite of their critical role in a healthy environment. Sharks aren’t monsters, they evolved to fill very specific roles in the ocean — a huge block in the Jenga of life — and if they go, our oceans would dramatically tumble in ways that would negatively impact humans too.

“Jaws” is a fantastic film if you can suspend your disbelief about a great white being the menace of the seas. That’s really us, but it doesn’t have to be.

The post Leave the Greenland sharks alone appeared first on Salon.com.

We’ve spent our entire political careers in different camps. One of us was a Democratic governor and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The other served as a conservative Republican in Congress for over a decade, representing a deep-red district in the Indiana heartland that President Donald Trump won in each of his three presidential elections by over 30 points.

But before we got into politics, we were both physicians in internal medicine and cardiothoracic surgery, respectively. We’ve seen firsthand how crucial it is for the patient-provider relationship to guide and determine the right care. And that’s why we’re so alarmed that nearly half of Americans, according to a recent survey by KFF, the independent health organization, now report that their health insurers have delayed or denied coverage for a doctor-recommended treatment within the past two years.

Corporate insurers should not be at the forefront of patient care. Delays and denials put patients’ health at risk. And they often lead to preventable complications and higher long-term spending.

We both believe reforming the health insurance system is a moral and an economic imperative, as do many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Even in a bitterly divided Congress, we have seen encouraging signs that reform is possible.

In recent months, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to hold insurers accountable — especially when it comes to “prior authorization,” the notorious and widely despised insurer practice of denying certain procedures and treatments unless doctors and patients first obtain permission. In a recent American Medical Association survey, 95% of physicians said they’ve seen prior authorization requirements delay necessary care. Nearly four in five have witnessed patients abandon treatment because of problems with the process.

Leaders in both parties already agree that improvements to the American insurance model are necessary. The bipartisan Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act would move Medicare Advantage prior authorizations to an electronic system and require quicker response times and greater transparency from insurers. Significantly, over 300 House members and 70 senators have cosponsored the legislation. This summer, it cleared two House committees unanimously.

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Lawmakers are also finding common ground on transparency. In July the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced a bipartisan bill that would require health insurers to publicly report how often they deny claims.

That scrutiny is overdue. Medicare Advantage insurers denied more than four million prior authorization requests in 2024.

When patients and their doctors appealed those denials, insurance companies reversed roughly 80% of their initial decisions. That high reversal rate suggests insurers are denying lots of medically appropriate procedures, tests and treatments — and hoping that doctors and patients will be too busy, sick and frustrated to follow through with an appeal.

That’s often a safe, albeit callous, bet. For too many Americans, fighting insurance companies can feel like a battle they cannot win. It often requires tremendous mental and emotional fortitude at a time when they are simply trying to get well. That is why Congress must take on that fight for them. Families already pay extraordinary sums for health coverage — by some measures, the monthly cost of employer-sponsored family health coverage now rivals the typical monthly mortgage payment. And still, these families face denials, delays and difficulty accessing the care and medicines they need.

As physicians, we know that time matters when someone is sick. As a Democrat and a Republican, we also recognize how rare genuine consensus is in Washington. That’s why we’re cautiously hopeful that after the midterms, Congress will seize the opportunity to make prior authorization and broader insurance marketplace reforms a priority.

The post A health reform both parties can get behind appeared first on Salon.com.

American health officials are on high alert following reports of a death in Russia that may be linked to pneumonic plague. The cause of death for the individual has yet to be officially confirmed by lab testing, but Daria Shipilova, a 28-year-old lab technician, worked at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute of Siberia and the Far East, an institute that, as the name implies, is dedicated to studying plague. The illness is highly fatal, with average fatality rates approaching 100%. 

Pneumonic plague is also highly contagious and can spread from person to person via air droplets. That gives the disease a high potential for an epidemic spread or even a global pandemic, but health officials have cautioned we have a long way to go to get to that point. The plague is treatable with antibiotics, but must be caught early enough. Due to the potential severity here, approximately 200 people have also been placed under medical observation in Irkutsk, a region in eastern Siberia, and some hospitals have been placed under quarantine.

U.S. officials are paying close attention. The State Department, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and other agencies are all trying to learn more. Axios reported this info as a “scoop,” but it’s relatively routine to surveil any pathogen that could cause severe damage to national security. However, Russia does not seem to be fully cooperating, with reports that Russian officials’ are being hesitant to share info while Russian intelligence officers are reportedly getting involved.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

“We don’t have a lot of intel,” one U.S. health official told the Washington Post. “It’s in Siberia. Unless someone gets on a plane and gets to the U.S., it is low risk. We should be alert but not panicked.” Based on the available information, the World Health Organization said “the ​public health risk to the general population appears to be low.”

Even President Donald Trump weighed in, telling reporters Monday that “We’re looking at it very strongly. He said he hasn’t yet talked with Russian President Vladimir Putin about it, but offered U.S. help with the issue. “It’s a rough disease. You know, that’s a disease we used to be able to control, but somehow those microbes have gotten stronger and smarter,” Trump said. “Anybody that has that kind of a problem we’ll always [be] willing to help. We’ll help you.”

The post Trump says U.S. is “looking strongly” at alleged Russian plague case appeared first on Salon.com.

Lethal injection has proven to be a difficult execution method to get right. It is more frequently botched than any other method. Sometimes, the results are catastrophic, as they were in Wednesday’s failed execution of Christa Pike. 

The 50-year-old, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, survived a severely botched execution by lethal injection on Wednesday. The drugs meant to kill her did not do their job, and she is now in critical condition, intubated, unconscious and on a ventilator in a Nashville-area hospital. According to her lawyer, Pike’s prognosis is unclear, as is the question of whether she will suffer a serious brain injury and loss of function.

Amid questions and a media storm, Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee ordered a third-party review and paused executions for the remainder of the year. On Saturday he announced that Frank Strada, the head of the state’s prison system, would be stepping down. 

Meanwhile, politicians like Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who is currently running for Tennessee governor, promised that if she is elected and Pike survives, she would try again to execute her — by other means, if necessary. “While there should be a thorough review of what happened and why the process failed,” Blackburn wrote on X, “the answer is simple: bring back the electric chair and deliver justice for these victims. As your governor, I will do just that.”

Not to be outdone, Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told NewsNation that he would “Prop her up and bring her to a firing squad.”

Such heartless statements should not distract us from the fact that what happened to Pike might have been prevented had the state of Tennessee paid attention to repeated warnings: that her small veins and history of a blood disorder would make lethal injection a cruel procedure. 

Pike’s failed execution also highlights another need. If death penalty states are going to continue to use lethal injections, they should be required to have competent medical professionals on hand to help carry them out. Doctors, good doctors, are needed to help make sure that the process goes as smoothly as possible — and that the condemned person does not suffer needlessly.

In Pike’s case, that did not happen.

The New York Times reported that “The execution team went through at least seven needles trying to find a vein suitable for delivering doses of a lethal drug [and Pike] was left with blistering and burning around the intravenous insertion sites that the execution team ultimately used to deliver the drug.”

According to some outside medical experts, she likely “survived the procedure because the drug, pentobarbital, probably poured into tissue surrounding the insertion sites instead of entering her bloodstream.” If accurate, this apparently happened because the intravenous lines needed to carry the lethal drugs were not placed correctly. 

Pike’s case was not an isolated event. Such problems have occurred many other times, though generally they have not prevented executions from proceeding. The people tasked with the job of finding a usable vein and securing an IV are not phlebotomists with specialized training or nurses. And in states like Tennessee, which does not carry out many lethal injection executions, members of the execution team do not have the chance to perfect their skill by using it a lot.

As Corinna Barrett Lain, a death penalty expert and professor at the University of Richmond School of Law told CNN, lethal injection is “a highly delicate, error-prone procedure that is done by people who are not trained . . . It’s a recipe for disaster from the start.”

In Pike’s case, a doctor was present — but he had a checkered history with executions. Dr. Mark Fowler was reportedly part of yet another bungled execution in Tennessee only months ago, when attempts to establish an IV line in 57-year-old Tony Carruthers, who was convicted of being involved in a triple murder in Memphis in 1994, failed repeatedly. (Following the attempted execution, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee gave Carruthers a one-year temporary reprieve.) In the wake of the Carruthers debacle, substantial questions were raised about Fowler’s ethics and competence, but they did not deter Tennessee from calling on him again.

Tennessee is one of 17 states with laws requiring doctors to play some role in the execution process. In those states, “Doctors have signed death warrants, rendered inmates competent, provided intravenous access, monitored vital signs, administered lethal injections and declared death.”

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

But at the same time, since the dawn of the lethal injection era, the American Medical Association has held that it is a violation of medical ethics for doctors to participate in executions: “Physician participation in execution is defined as actions that fall into one or more of the following categories: Would directly cause the death of the condemned. Would assist, supervise, or contribute to the ability of another individual to directly cause the death of the condemned.”

According to AMA guidelines, doctors involved in lethal injections cannot choose injection sites, start IV lines to administer the lethal medicine or be involved in prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types.” Other professional associations, including the American Nursing Association and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, have established similar regulations.

The result is that states have been forced to turn to unlicensed medical personnel. Hundreds of them have played a role in executions — but they have done so in the shadows. 

That is not good enough when someone’s life is being extinguished. As is the case with physician assistance in dying, the choice is between professional purity and the need for expertise in making sure the end of life will be as peaceful as possible.

In the wake of Carruthers’ botched execution, a group of more than 40 doctors and nurses came down on the side of purity. They sent a letter to Lee asking him to change the state’s execution process so that medical professionals no longer would have to be involved. “[T]he health care professionals who agree to take part in Tennessee’s executions are those willing to set aside their professional ethics,” they wrote. “The problems that we have seen, such as in Mr. Carruthers’s case, are the predictable result of working with such unscrupulous actors.” 

But here’s a thought: Maybe the problem is not with Tennessee law but instead with the ethical standards that keep reputable medical professionals from participating in executions.

The doctors treating Pike know that “[i]f she recovers, Tennessee might try to kill her again [and]  that their job is to do the best they can for the patient in front of them and not to think about that.’” 

There will be time to do so if the savage cries of politicians like Blackburn and Burchett are heard. But with Pike currently in critical condition from a cruel, mangled procedure, it’s unclear if and when that might happen. But if it does, doctors should do their part to see to it that she is treated with as much compassion in the death chamber as she is in the hospital.

The post Christa Pike’s botched execution was not an isolated incident appeared first on Salon.com.

Since moving to Italy from the U.S., I’ve noticed how much more spontaneous social interactions are here. It’s common for me to run into someone I know and have them invite me to coffee on the spot. Instead of receiving a text, I’m more likely to get a voice message or a phone call from someone I just met. But this is only true of the friends I’ve made here. When communicating with friends back home, I text them or send voice messages. But mostly, I do the dance of having to schedule a catch-up like it’s a work meeting. So when The Cut writer Kathleen Walsh published an essay recently about feeling like she should be able to cold call her friends, it resonated with me deeply. “In the past 20 years, a new social boundary seems to have calcified among people my age,” Walsh wrote. “It is no longer appropriate to pick up your phone and call your friend whenever you feel like it.”

In February 2026, a YouGov survey found that 68% of surveyed Americans said text messaging had replaced at least some of the phone calls they used to make. More than one-third of those surveyed said text messaging had replaced most of their calls. While there isn’t any data to quantify its frequency, as Walsh pointed out, if a phone call does happen, it’s becoming increasingly more common to text before you call. But in a time when loneliness has been declared a public health crisis, Americans are saying fewer words to each other, and it’s trendy to be nostalgic for the ’90s – why isn’t the friendly cold call making a comeback? 

There are a few reasons. Despite all the public discourse around loneliness and the need to connect, the cold call violates some of the communication norms we’ve spent decades developing. Jeffrey Hall, a professor of communications at the University of Kansas, said one reason is simply that phone calls are sometimes disruptive to people’s lives. “There are lots of reasons people shouldn’t or normatively don’t take phone calls, and they’re totally valid,” he said. For example, when someone is at work or in a public setting. In fact, Hall added, when mobile phones first became more widespread, there was a backlash against taking private calls in public. Texting first, to arrange a phone call, is now seen as the more polite approach. 

Adding to the phone-calls-may-be-disruptive argument, Hall said in today’s digital-heavy world, people are constantly being bombarded by notifications on their phones. A friendly cold call could be viewed as yet another interruption, and a demanding one. Then there’s another reason at play: humans love to screen phone calls. From the invention of the answering machine to caller ID, Hall said people “really enjoy” having the ability to control when, and whether, they answer the phone. 

“I think that the politeness norm is actually a sign of good relational practice to say that I’m respecting the fact that there are lots of times not to take a call, and I’m also going to show this person some respect by doing so,” Hall said. “But when we use texting to replace important, meaningful conversations, or long catch-ups, because we do not want to put the effort of time into maintaining our relationships, that I think, is the big loss.”

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

That doesn’t necessarily mean this new social norm of having to text before you call has serious consequences, or that phone calls are the only way to maintain friendships. Throughout history, every new form of communication has generated some type of anxiety. The rise of phone calls once led people to worry about in-person interactions. However, Hall says he believes phone calls are better than texting when it comes to connecting meaningfully with people. But is there something lost when they no longer feel spontaneous?

“Most of our communication is spontaneous,” Matt Abrahams, a professor and author of “Think Faster, Talk Smarter: How to Speak Successfully When You’re Put on the Spot,” said. “And good things happen in spontaneous communication.” He used small talk as an example, which can lead to a deeper understanding, deeper trust, and connection for people. “I do believe we miss out on things when we’re not allowing ourselves to have some of these spontaneous interactions.”

But for many people, a cold call from a friend or family member has become synonymous with an emergency. “A ringing phone now reads as an emergency, and most of us have been conditioned to meet surprise with a small spike of alarm,” Christa Smith, a psychologist in Georgia, said. Smith agreed, a pre-arranged call is “courteous,” but it has also turned connection into an appointment. “And appointments get postponed.” 

“Spontaneity is how a relationship says ‘I thought of you for no reason,’” she said. 

Beyond experts in communication, the trend of having to text before you call is also divisive. Melanie Tornroth, a 45-year-old working mom, said she absolutely expects people to text before calling first. “Receiving cold calls from friends and family is now a huge pet peeve of mine,” she said. “The only person I will cold call is my mom because I know she prefers it and will always answer the phone.” When someone calls her out of the blue, it can feel intrusive and give her a lot of anxiety. “I have so much on my plate on a daily basis,” she said. “If a family member or friend calls, I feel pressure to answer, but I am rarely just sitting around doing nothing with time to chat.”

Conversely, Jackie Domanus, a 44-year-old mom of three in California, prefers spontaneous phone calls. In fact, she is known for cold calling her friends. “I just call,” she told me. “I’ve stopped sending or answering texts for the most part; I’m just over it,” she added. Domanus emphasized that she works alone and misses people and their voices, which could be part of her don’t-text-just-call stance. “Call me, or it’s not that important,” she said.

Mary Westheimer, a 71-year-old in Phoenix, Arizona, also prefers phone calls over texts.  “Please do not text me to ask if you can call me,” she said.

For people who are tired of having to schedule calls with their friends, Smith suggested agreeing with two or three of your closest people that a text before a call is never needed. “Some people are anecdotally growing tired of having to schedule calls with friends,” she said. 

Kissy Black, a 50-something in Nashville, was one of those people. She said she and her daughter got into a habit of texting to schedule a call, which “created some perceived hurdles to keeping in touch.” But recently, they instituted a “cold call rule” allowing them to call each other anytime, day or night, without texting first.

“Now, when one of us calls, we just say ‘cold call, cold call,’ which immediately makes us both laugh and kicks off our conversation,” Black said. “As a result, we are talking at least 300% more than we used to.”

As for me, any friends or family reading this can expect more cold calls. And if you can’t answer, no problem. I am personally team bring the friendly cold call back.

The post The quiet cost of scheduling every conversation appeared first on Salon.com.

Last Wednesday, the head of an AI tech company casually announced, in a long-winded post on X, a discovery that, if true, would represent a major breakthrough in biomedical research. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, wrote that his company’s large language model Claude had found “a molecular machine that we suspect could represent a new gene editing mechanism.” 

So what does this “molecular machine” actually do? No one is entirely sure yet. But that hasn’t stopped tech bros from already upholding it as a new version of CRISPR, the enzyme-wielding tool that cuts up DNA like nobody’s business, sparking a revolution in ultra-precise genetic modification that has spanned research in everything from agriculture to cancer therapy. It’s no surprise its discoverers earned a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. If an AI program really just made a similar discovery, it would be big news.

Indeed, Amodei goes on to say that this finding could be a step toward developing cures for most diseases in five to 10 years. The company’s press release goes into more detail, but basically says that Claude was prompted to search through a massive database of DNA sequences for reverse transcriptases, enzymes that copy RNA into DNA. “After 21 hours spent searching this data by roughly 950 agents using 210 million tokens, one of the agents spotted something remarkable: a repeating pattern of DNA sequences that occurs next to the gene for an odd-looking RT,” the statement reads. Except that nothing about that is so “remarkable,” at least according to numerous people who study and work in this field.

“It is too soon to say that Claude — or the team of human researchers involved has discovered a ‘new CRISPR,’” Dimitri Perrin, an associate professor at the Queensland University of Technology, writes in The Conversation. He goes on to emphasize that what Claude found — a previously uncharacterized enzyme system found in viruses that infect bacteria — isn’t necessarily going to be useful. More research is needed, but Perrin explains that for now, the discovery is “CRISPR-like in its architecture, but there is no evidence that it is CRISPR-like in its function.”

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

“Claude’s work isn’t even close to being in the same league as DeepMind’s AlphaFold system for predicting protein structure, which is proving to be truly transformative,” Michael Le Page, a senior reporter at New Scientist, wrote. Social media exploded with other examples of people dunking on Anthropic’s PR, with Simon Maechling, a PhD chemist, writing on X, “Claude discovered something in biology. Nobody knows what it does. But we already have the press release. … Finding something interesting isn’t the same as understanding it. Understanding it isn’t the same as showing it works. And showing it works isn’t the same as making it useful.”

Perhaps AI researcher Timnit Gebru summarized it best: “Please see what experts in this field are saying about this ‘discovery’ and not these scammers or press stenographers. This hype DDOS from them isn’t going to stop any time soon and we’ve seen how the mainstream media is doing press-release-as-a-service at this point.”

So it seems like Anthropic is making some pretty bold claims over something that is mildly cool and worth investigating, but at this point, also seems unlikely to revolutionize medicine or science. Why does this matter? A tech company making extreme claims is far from new. Big deal. But contrast all this hype (not to mention the energy spent debunking it) with the buzz just a few weeks ago about how, in just a few years, AI will supposedly gain sentience and kill off humanity. Consider how Anthropic CEO’s Amodei is among those pushing such a narrative, including warning that his company’s tools carry a risk of being used for cyberattacks or terrorism, including developing deadly viruses. Taken together, this presents a false dichotomy: AI will either end disease and suffering or inflict it in untold measure. Might there be a third option?

For anyone who buys the AI spiel, it’s a tool with boundless power. For now, however, the tech companies still rely on an old-fashioned kind of power offered by the state, which is precisely why other tech CEOs were seen sucking up to Chinese President Xi Jinping during his recent U.S. vacation. Amodei missed meeting Xi, for what it’s worth, but had a private dinner with President Donald Trump late Sunday night and later this week joined other tech leaders for a luncheon hosted by Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson. There — joined by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and others — the president signed a “morally binding” artificial intelligence document, which sounds promising, until you hear Trump repeatedly tell reporters that tech companies can supervise themselves. “The self-regulation is very important,” Trump said. The document signed seems to have zero enforcement or legal mechanisms, so in this context, it appears “morally binding” just means “self-policing.” 

It’s no mystery why the president — heavily invested in the AI industry as he acridly dismisses any notion of regulation — is cozy with the idea of AI’s alleged abilities. In his latest effort to sell the American public on the coming “golden age” of AI (of course Trump would use that phrase), on Monday the Trump administration both launched America.gov, an AI chatbot powered by Google’s Gemini and Elon Musk’s Grok, and signed an executive order to rename AI “super intelligence.”

As Gebru observed, the grift has no end. All the more reason to pour cold water on outrageous claims about flagging little enzymes in huge databases. (Let’s avoid anthropomorphizing these programs by using the verb “discover.”) The goal of Anthropic’s AI propaganda — because that’s what it is — is to get most people skimming past the headlines to only catch “AI finds new CRISPR” and think a cure for cancer and world peace are right around the corner. All we have to do is hand the keys and all our money to Silicon Valley. Whether it’s utopia or dystopia, that’s the pitch: cede control of this tech to the billionaires in charge. In that sense, blindly swallowing AI’s positive hype can be as dangerous as its alleged existential risks.

The post AI hype promises miracles. That’s as risky as doomsday talk appeared first on Salon.com.

Major League Baseball has played games in a cornfield, a NASCAR speedway and historic ballparks. Now, the league is apparently wondering whether it can add a national park to the list.

MLB approached the Trump administration about holding a regular-season game in a national park, and National Park Service Deputy Director Frank Lands recently visited Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming to examine three potential locations for a temporary baseball facility, The Washington Post reported.

The idea remains preliminary. No site has been selected and no permits have been issued. The White House stressed that MLB — not President Donald Trump or his administration — proposed the concept.

“This is not a Presidential directive, nor is it being directed by the White House,” the White House told the Post.

For MLB, playing somewhere unexpected has increasingly become part of the schedule. In addition to international games in England, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Mexico, the league has staged games at Iowa’s “Field of Dreams” site, historic Rickwood Field and Bristol Motor Speedway, where a temporary baseball field was constructed inside the NASCAR track.

Turning Grand Teton into the next destination could be considerably more complicated.

Hosting tens of thousands of baseball fans inside a national park could require substantial temporary infrastructure beyond the field itself, including facilities for spectators and players, broadcast crews, security, sanitation and emergency services — not to mention getting thousands of people to and from the site.

Those demands could run into Grand Teton’s rules for special events. Events cannot alter the movement of visitors, wildlife or traffic, close roads or trails, or take place in designated wilderness areas. Commercial logos, banners and tent-like structures are also prohibited.

At least one location examined by Lands is reportedly already-disturbed land used for storage rather than untouched parkland. Conservation advocates have nevertheless raised concerns about the environmental impact and precedent of staging a major professional sporting event inside a national park.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

No detailed construction plan or environmental review has been released, leaving unanswered how MLB could stage the game while satisfying those protections.

Even if those hurdles can be cleared, baseball won’t be coming to the Tetons soon. MLB’s 2027 special-event schedule is already set, making 2028 the earliest possible date.

The post MLB’s next ballpark could be in a national park appeared first on Salon.com.

It’s time to vote in one of the most consequential elections of the year, one only slightly less important than the November midterms. Of course I’m talking about Fat Bear Week, the annual event in which people elect — well, yes, the fattest bear. The candidates are bears in Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska, who are currently busy devouring as many calories as possible to fatten up for winter hibernation. Voting officially opened Sept. 22, continuing a tradition started in 2014 to select which bears are the best and most fat using a March Madness-style bracket. You can learn more and vote here, plus read some delightful bios on the bears in the running or peruse its hall of champions.

Something like a million people vote in this event every year, according to the daytime news segment that I caught at the dentist the other afternoon while getting a tooth cleaning. Do I need to fact-check that? Sometimes information just comes at you when you have your mouth wide open and people are prodding their fingers around inside. (It remains a mystery, however, why my dentist has a TV on in every room.)

My point is, everyone is talking about Fat Bear Week, and I encourage it. Growing up, I was one of those reflexively contrarian teenagers who hated anything popular and found value in almost anything obscure, independent or weird. These days I’m much less anti-mainstream, especially when it’s something that brings us closer to our true human nature, which is reflected to some degree in the seasonal behaviors of other species. I, too, will fatten up this winter, whether I want to or not. 

I wish Fat Bear Week could be every week. Some people are trying. There’s now a Fat Marmot Week, a similar event inaugurated this year. But I must add that a family of marmots devastated my garden in April and destroyed my precious stargazer lilies (I am not joking about this; it was brutal and saddening), so I’m having a hard time jumping on that bandwagon. But I’ll try! Go fat marmots, go! Plump yourself on the spoils of would-be gardeners. I was a big fan when succulents became a dumb little trend, because at least that was boosting an interest in plants rather than mass-produced ugly dolls from China or something. I can’t stand all this plastic trash we elevate above the natural world. Maybe I have retained my anti-establishment roots after all. 

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

This would be the point in the essay where I introduce some sad facts about falling grizzly population levels or remind everyone that climate change is going to make it harder for bears to exist or something. I definitely need to fact-check that, but I don’t want to. Even coming across news this week that a mining project is being fast-tracked at Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, which neighbors Katmai National Park and could impact bear populations, is not what I need to hear right now. Sometimes we all need some joy in life, such as contemplating the fattest bears without all the other gloomy stuff in the world. I do find plenty of things to be grateful for and optimistic about, even if it doesn’t always come through in my published writing. While I don’t want to ignore all the very important chaos — facts that barely register on the news cycle, like how we keep breaching the planetary boundaries necessary for the flourishing of life — I try not to wallow in it either. That’s what Fat Bear Week means to me, and I think we could all use more stuff like it. Ping me when there’s a Sleekest Dolphin Week, Plumpest Mushroom Monday or the Most Insane Octopus of the Month. Give me the “American Idol” version of meadowlark songs.

I am always humbled and delighted whenever the internet explodes over some recently indexed cat species or a shiny new NASA artifact, like the first images of a black hole or the recent trip around the moon, maybe because the collective awe inspired by stuff like that reminds me that people do feel connected to something larger and more mysterious, whether it’s little red dots in the early universe or bears munching on berries in Alaska. From there, maybe people will take more responsibility for the home we share. There’s not much I can do about grizzly bear populations — which are indeed at greater risk under the Trump administration — but I can show my solidarity; I can vote, not just in fun online elections but in the real, super serious one coming up. And I can dream of — no, demand — a better world for all species. Oh, and by the way, I’m rooting for unnamed bear 909. Read her bio. She’s been through a lot of grief, and I admire her resilience. 

The post Fat Bear Week should be every week appeared first on Salon.com.

This story was originally reported by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. Meet Shefali and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

The family of a woman who died after she could not get an abortion in Texas is suing doctors and state officials including Attorney General Ken Paxton. It is the first lawsuit over a death linked to an abortion ban. 

“It’s horrible that she’s gone and she was taken from us this way. It’s horrible that she’s not here anymore,” said LaTanya Walker, Tierra Walker’s aunt and the lead plaintiff in the case, in a press conference Wednesday. She added: “I want justice for her. I want it to not happen to anyone else. It needs to stop.”

The case, filed Tuesday in state court by a malpractice firm and the abortion rights group Amplify Legal, argues that Texas’ abortion bans violate both the state and U.S. Constitution. This case is also the first to directly sue Paxton, who has taken a leading role in enforcing Texas’ ban. Paxton is locked in a tight race for the U.S. Senate.

“Tierra Walker is dead and those responsible must be held accountable,” the suit reads. “At every turn, Texas’s political and medical establishments not only failed but actively harmed Ms. Walker.”

Walker is one of the numerous women whose deaths have been linked to abortion bans. Other deaths have occurred in North Carolina and Georgia, states with bans less restrictive than Texas’. Texas’ near-total abortion ban provides exceptions only if staying pregnant puts someone “at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” In 2025 — after Walker’s death — the state passed a law meant to clarify what constitutes a risk of death. But the penalties for violating the state’s ban remain onerous, and many doctors have said it is not obvious what care they can provide or how sick a patient must be before they can intervene.

Walker, whose case was first reported on last year by ProPublica, died December 30, 2024, when she was 37 years old and 20 weeks into her pregnancy. Her medical history of chronic conditions — including diabetes, hypertension, obesity and severe asthma — made her pregnancy particularly high-risk. She was hospitalized multiple times during her pregnancy and repeatedly asked for an abortion. According to the lawsuit, doctors did not give her information on how she could get an abortion, instead dismissing her after telling her “your baby is fine.”

“They just kept saying, ‘It’s not the baby, the baby’s fine,’” LaTanya Walker said. 

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Walker died days after being discharged from the University of Texas Science Center at San Antonio, also known as the University Health System, according to the lawsuit. Her son discovered her dead on his 15th birthday.

After Walker’s death, a medical examiner ruled that she died of hypertensive cardiovascular disease with preeclampsia, the latter of which is a dangerous pregnancy-related high blood pressure condition that doctors had identified in Walker. 

Some Texans have been able to get abortions by leaving the state or ordering abortion medication online. Walker’s illness — which included seizures and frequent hospitalizations — prevented her from traveling out of state, said Molly Duane, one of the family’s attorneys. LaTanya Walker considered ordering abortion pills for her niece, she said, but she ultimately did not because she worried about whether they could exacerbate medical conditions.

“That’s the problem. You should be able to get healthcare from your doctor,” Duane said.

Medical records cited in the suit note that on her last hospital visit, her blood pressure was dangerously high and only temporarily responsive to medication. According to those records, the doctor caring for her at that point, who is a named defendant in the suit, wrote that “delivering the baby” — which would terminate the pregnancy — ”may be the best treatment for preeclampsia.” 

Doctors who reviewed the case for ProPublica all told the news outlet that, given Walker’s medical risks, she should have been offered an abortion. 

The suit names Paxton and Stephen Brint Carlton, the executive director of the Texas Medical Board, in their official and individual capacities, as well as Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales in his official capacity. It also names the University of Texas Science Center at San Antonio and three of the doctors who cared for Walker. 

The 19th reached out to Paxton’s office and Senate campaign, Carlton, the University Health System and the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office for comment, but received no immediate reply.

Paxton has been a staunch defendant of Texas’ abortion ban. In another case, he threatened legal action against anyone who gave an abortion to one woman — despite a court saying she qualified for an exception to the state’s ban. He has also sought to dismiss a case brought by women who had been denied abortions in medical emergencies, and who were pushing for greater clarity over when someone could receive an abortion in Texas.

The plaintiffs, Walker’s family, are seeking a jury trial and pursuing both damages and a judgement finding that Texas’ abortion laws violate the state constitution.

The post Tierra Walker died after she couldn’t get an abortion. Her family is suing Ken Paxton appeared first on Salon.com.

Humans are probably the only species on Earth that actively fantasizes about its own extinction — and definitely the only one that actively participates in it. Even that whole thing about lemmings running off cliffs is a myth, but we bald-ish primates not only turn existential doom into entertainment (consider the entire post-apocalyptic genre writ large) or religious movements, we constantly invent new ways to derail our global society and put all of us at risk of mass death. 

The latest serious entry to this category is artificial intelligence, which isn’t actually intelligence, nor does it reflect a brand new fear. But the dramatic advancements made in AI over the last several years has finally made it something that scares people almost as much as nuclear weapons or the hand of God. Will AI truly become an agent of mass destruction? Nobody actually knows, but that isn’t stopping people from making some outlandish bets. 

This situation has been made worse by the heads of AI companies warning or threatening the public that the tools they’re developing could do more than just eliminate everyone’s job: it could take out humanity itself. We are drowning in tech-bro manifestos that simultaneously uphold AI as a miracle technology and a terrorist’s wet dream, all of it so steeped in marketing lingo that it’s difficult to parse how threatening or auspicious it actually is.

Meanwhile, our president boasts in all-caps rants that a “STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT” is all we need to regulate this technology, which for most people is literally the opposite of reassurance, as with his insistence that AI apocalypse is a “hoax.” Donald Trump has also been playing the old-fashioned Red card, saying that any attempt to rein in AI, it will only help China get ahead in the race. “Whoever wins with AI wins,” Trump told reporters during his weekend jaunt to Ireland.

What are we trying to win, exactly? That isn’t clear. Is it control of self-replicating armies of autonomous drones, or a cancer-free utopia that hits Type II on the Kardashev scale? For now, both options are well within the realm of fantasy, though the former is much less so. All of this rests on assumptions that the current technology, built on so-called large-language models, will develop into artificial general intelligence, a hypothetical computer system that surpasses human intelligence in all domains. Keep in mind that there’s no hard evidence that LLMs, which are essentially souped-up versions of the predictive text algorithm on your phone, are going to assemble into something so complex and godlike. 

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The leaps required to go from AI to AGI are massive, nonlinear and still very theoretical. But fearmongers are jumping even further ahead and saying that once AGI exists, it could mean curtains for the human species. It’s wise to be skeptical of hypotheticals stacked on hypotheticals. The argument over what to do about this ranges from doubling down on AI development with zero regulation to burning down all the data centers. MAGA is basically warning us not to let the Chinese Communist Party get its grubby hands on the tech first: Shut up and trust Big Tech, or “Let Data reign!” Plus, the AI boom is totally not a bubble! Don’t even consider that all the adrenalized rhetoric might be about keeping the stock market adrift and less about the actual utility of AI.

Perhaps where one stands on the issue depends on how deeply they internalized “The Terminator” or “The Matrix.” Regardless, none of us asked to be in this AI race. Why isn’t cooperation with China a bigger consideration? We can imagine algorithms with godlike intelligence but not AI diplomacy? The whole thing smacks of Cold War déjà vu.

Sure, it’s probably logical to dread the future AI could bring, arguably if it leads to the collapse of late-stage capitalism. Maybe it’s past time to examine what we’re actually afraid of and why, rather than making assumptions about what AI can or can’t do, especially in the future. After all, it’s just a technology, a tool — which means it’s also a weapon in the wrong hands. Indeed, AI has already been widely used in warfare, from U.S. strikes on Iran to fully autonomous drones in the Russia-Ukraine war. It’s not hard to imagine this situation getting worse, but don’t forget who’s in control. As my colleague Alex Galbraith has argued, “CEOs can’t take credit for the successes of A.I. while avoiding the negative externalities. They’re both the results of real decisions made by actual thinking people. The blame for any harm the technology inflicts should lay with its creators.”

If tech bros are saying that AI might someday break containment and take down civilization, that sounds like an accountability sink coupled with an investor pitch. Maybe it’s Silicon Valley that should be scared we’ll call their bluff, or imprison their executives, for whatever crimes may someday occur. But why do we latch onto the fears they sell us? Maybe it’s embedded human instinct, an afterglow of developing self-awareness of our own mortality, to consider existential risks. That impulse certainly dates back before the time of Jesus, but with the advent of the atomic era, apocalypse is actually possible, though that prospect has less to do with the nightmare scenarios of the Book of Revelation than with the military-industrial complex. Yet fears about AI dominate the discourse while bigger and more imminent threats go largely unacknowledged.

There’s a strange religious tone to all of this, as pointed out by AI researcher Timnit Gebru in a Wired interview last week. What’s “really existential,” she said, “is AI powering autonomous weapons, killing machines, that are actually being used in warfare. The climate catastrophe is a real thing that could be exacerbated by what these tech companies are building. Bosses are using AI as an excuse to get rid of their pesky workers. This machine-god narrative is, in my opinion, meant to distract us from these. The industry has become a mix of cults, a mix of people who are true believers, just like a preacher who says the end times is coming. The singularity has been coming for decades now.”

Considering the massive and growing deadly impact of air pollution, heat waves, freak floods and other disasters, the No. 1 existential threat to humanity remains climate change, which is on track to get much worse by mid-century. Global heating is driven overwhelmingly by the fossil fuel industry, yet in the U.S. we’re regulating that less stringently than ever, with the Environmental Protection Agency announcing on Monday the repeal of rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions of coal and gas plants. Of course the AI industry is linked to all that through the destructive appetite of data centers, but if we think that only imaginary killing machines can wipe out most of human civilization, we need to think again. We’re already well on the way to doing that.

The post Are we in the AI end times? appeared first on Salon.com.