Are you a broke college student in need of extra cash? 

Did you consent to be born? 

If you didn’t, consider suing your parents for giving birth to you without your consent like Raphael Samuel did in his anti-natalist publicity stunt. When interviewed about his lawsuit, Samuel told BBC reporters: “I was a normal kid. One day I was very frustrated and I didn’t want to go to school but my parents kept asking me to go. So I asked them: ‘Why did you have me?’ And my dad had no answer. I think if he’d been able to answer, maybe I wouldn’t have thought this way.”

Raphael Samuel isn’t the only person to feel this way. Anti-natalist thinking has been around for centuries and has only grown as overpopulation spikes, quality of life drops, and concern about the environment rises. Anti-natalism isn’t the only rapidly rising ideology being adopted in response to climate change: veganism is on the rise as well. However, while both lifestyles have the potential to change the world for the better, and concerns about climate change are often cited to justify the choice, veganism and anti-natalism have wildly different roots and an array of motivations.

Anti-natalist sentiments have been around since the early days of Buddhism and stretched throughout history, through continents and religions. However, the term “anti-natalism” wasn’t associated with these ideas until David Benatar’s 2006 book Better Never to Have Been. Benatar argues that there is an asymmetry between pain (harms) and pleasure (benefits), asserting that “the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone, whereas the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.” Anti-natalism, generally, tends to be divided into two main factions. One faction is philosophical anti-natalism: the belief that creating new life at all is immoral and that humans should collectively stop having children and slowly die out. The other, less extreme faction is reactionary/activist anti-natalism. This faction aligns more with environmental concerns. It takes the stance that having children in a world ripe with war, starvation, and overpopulation is something that should be limited.

Veganism, as a lifestyle and ideology, also tends to have two factions: protectionism and abolitionism. While abolitionist vegans, similar to philosophical anti-natalists, believe that humans have no right to use or kill animals, protectionist vegans work more towards limiting animal product use. Similarly to reactionary anti-natalists, protectionist vegans can set aside the “end-goal” ideals of their philosophy to confront a real-world problem and set compromises, particularly in environmental concerns. These vegans still work to challenge the morality of eating or using animal products, but, like anti-natalism, religious and spiritual factors are at work. One motivator of many vegans that isn’t as much a factor for anti-natalists is the appeal of the diet for health reasons. However, when asked to defend their choice or to convince someone of their beliefs, both vegans and anti-natalists often turn to environmental concerns.

For anti-natalists, the main concern regarding the environment is overpopulation. For vegans, it’s the unsustainable nature of meat production. But while around 40% of young vegans agree that veganism is good for the environment, closer to 17% said that that’s the reason they made their choice. For both vegans and anti-natalists, the benefit to the environment is more a happy accident than anything—but that benefit can never happen without collective action. Though the moral, religious, or health reasons behind both veganism and anti-natalism can be upheld at the individual level, individual choices will not substantially affect the world. 

While these philosophies rely on majority support, both are held in the minority: vegans represent approximately 1.1% of the global population, while anti-natalists are estimated to represent less than half of that number, at around 0.5%. Of course, it isn’t really possible to know how many people subscribe to these beliefs, and even harder to know who practices what they preach. But it’s sufficient to know that both lifestyles reside in the overwhelming minority. 

For both, the opposite view is the one viewed as correct or “moral” by default: eating animal products and having babies. The interesting difference here isn’t that the majority view is viewed as moral—it’s that judgment is often passed onto the choice to not do something. Oftentimes, people have to defend why they don’t have kids or don’t eat meat. There is even a non-conformist stereotype associated with vegans and anti-natalists, and a general disdain for those who preach the practices, leading to nicknames such as “Baby-Hater” or “Tree-Hugger.” The view that a lack of action can be considered an incorrect or immoral lifestyle is an interesting contrast to what is usually considered “immoral action” and raises questions about what role veganism and anti-natalism realistically play in modern society.

Late-night fire alarms are all too common for students living in residence halls at Virginia Tech. Pritchard Hall for example saw 12 fire alarms last semester. Such a high frequency of fire alarms can cause several issues for students, ranging from disrupting their sleep schedules to making them take future alarms less seriously. In order to bring attention to this problem, VT students founded Firewatch, an organization dedicated to tracking and reporting these fire alarm occurrences.

Originally started in 2019 as a website to track fire alarms in Pritchard Hall, Firewatch has since expanded its online presence to maintain a database of fire alarms at all Virginia Tech residence halls, as well as running a Discord server for students to report and discuss fire alarms and other incidents. Information for the database is obtained through two main sources: student-submitted reports and a radio scanner. By using a radio scanner, members of Firewatch can listen to public police and fire department broadcasts, which provide a reliable source of information to track fire alarms and various public safety-related emergencies. This data is then compiled and published online. Student and first responder reports have also allowed Firewatch to identify the causes of frequent fire alarms. Cooking accidents, laundry room fires, and sensitive smoke detectors (which can be set off by aerosol sprays or steam from showers) have all been identified as some of the most common causes of fire alarms in residence halls at Virginia Tech. With this information, Firewatch can bring attention to university infrastructure shortfalls and create programs to educate students on basic fire safety practices to avoid setting off fire alarms unintentionally or causing actual fires.

This type of educational programming is especially important given that the administration at Virginia Tech largely views Firewatch as a club that encourages setting off false fire alarms. To dispel this notion, Firewatch makes it clear to its members both on its website and in its code of conduct that the organization “does not condone the pulling of fire alarms without cause.” This false perception of Firewatch by the VT administration has also made it more difficult for Firewatch to push for change on its campus. Although they have been able to identify infrastructure issues such as overly sensitive fire alarms, Virginia Tech has been reluctant to take them seriously. 

However, Firewatch members have not let the lack of support from the administration stop them from using the organization as a channel to make an impact in the local community. After Hurricane Helene swept through North Carolina and Virginia in late September, the town of Blacksburg, where Virginia Tech is located, was placed under a boil water advisory for over a week. During the boil water advisory, the Firewatch Discord server functioned as a central source of information for students. Information about what locations had water, where water was being distributed, and official timelines for the advisory were all posted on the server, which has over 600 members. By having existing digital communication channels in place, Firewatch was able to quickly adapt during an emergency to serve the local community. 

As of March 2025, Firewatch at Virginia Tech is the only organization of its kind in the nation. However, many schools across the nation could benefit from creating similar organizations. When asked about why other schools should consider establishing their own Firewatch organizations, the President of VT Firewatch, Deimos Provell, explained that “fire alarms and other poorly timed disasters are a relatively common inconvenience, and Firewatch has created a space for people to bond over this shared experience.” 

The University of Georgia is no stranger to such incidents. Last October, Myers Hall flooded after a pipe burst, forcing students to temporarily evacuate the building after a series of fire alarms went off. Other events like natural disasters have the potential to impact UGA students as well. During Hurricane Helene, nearly 20% of Athens-Clarke County experienced power outages during or after the storm. Although these incidents had more limited impacts than the ones at Virginia Tech, future events could have more wide-reaching consequences. By creating centralized channels to collect and share data, such as those maintained by VT Firewatch, students can have a dedicated space to share crucial information and discuss ongoing issues.

VT Firewatch has demonstrated its support for expanding Firewatch to other schools. Officers in charge of maintaining the website have been working on creating mirror sites so that other schools can easily create their websites by using VT Firewatch’s website as a base template. Deimos further mentioned that “[t]he idea of other schools starting their version of Firewatch is something we all find very exciting, so we are more than willing to provide our insight from our experience running VT Firewatch.” By using VT Firewatch as a model, students at other universities can create their own channels to highlight potential systemic gaps in fire safety education and infrastructure while also creating spaces to promote community engagement.

From salads to sushi, tuna is the second most popular seafood product in the United States, with the market size reaching around $3 billion in 2023.

But why? The 1900s were a time of huge conflict for the entire world. As a direct result of this conflict, immigration policies changed rapidly, reflecting the US’s allies and adversaries. Some notable events include American responses to Pearl Harbor in 1941 and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order relocating over 100,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps.

The internment order had a major impact on the American attitude toward East Asians. The idea that “Japan is the enemy” permeated the United States. This belief can be traced through almost everything from this time period—from racist imitations of East Asians in media to government actions against those of Asian descent. In 1948, Truman issued reparations for Japanese populations affected by internment. Four years later, Japanese immigration was made legal again with the withdrawal of the 1924 Immigration Act.

Though American attitudes towards East Asians remained mostly negative for decades after, the development of Asian enclaves– such as Chinatown and Japantown– embodied the increase in immigration amidst the cultural tensions. These ethnic pockets would remain a safe haven for immigrant populations and foster cross-cultural interactions. Restaurants in these areas began to attract patrons in surrounding areas, thus spreading their distinct flavors. Through this culinary exchange, tuna—one of the primary fish in Japanese cuisine—made its way onto the American plate.

The growth of East Asian communities in the United States facilitated the spread of tuna-based dishes into mainstream American sensibilities. In 1989, the available amount of canned tuna rose to almost four pounds per person due to growing consumer demand.

Ecological surveys show that the rapidly increasing demand for Atlantic bluefin tuna is met with a race to meet it, directly resulting in the overfishing and overextension of existing fisheries. In order to maximize their profits and supply, fisheries have developed techniques to harvest as much meat as possible while keeping costs low. One of these techniques is “purse-seine,” which uses nets to trap lage schools of bluefin tuna. The technique often ends up catching and killing dolphins and other sea animals by accident. These nets primarily target juvenile bluefins so that they can be raised, bred, and harvested in a commercial setting more efficiently. Despite being profitable, this practice applies ecological pressure to the tuna’s environment. As younger tuna are taken away from their habitats in vast amounts, there is an overall decline in tuna populations. 

As a major predator within their environment, the bluefin tuna’s absence has major consequences on all other species. Besides these environmental impacts, there are also social and cultural impacts. Many East Asian states, especially island nations, rely heavily on seafood products as a key part of their diet and as valuable export goods. However, the sharp increase in global tuna demand has caused suppliers, especially small-scale fishers, to struggle to have competitive supplies. As larger distributors employ unsafe methods and are able to buy out local fisheries, the space in the market for small businesses vanishes. Even in Japan, where fisheries are a major part of the economy, locals’ ability to independently meet their seafood needs is waning. Although overfishing and increased consumption will be hard to reverse, there have been some initiatives such as the United Nations’ strides to reduce the stress on fisheries.

Humanity’s relationship with the ocean has been complicated and unhealthy—we rely heavily on its resources but are unable to maintain safe and sustainable practices in acquiring such resources. 
Tuna is just one very narrow example of this issue. Many well-known historical events have played important and unexpected roles in spurring cultural change: the tragedy of 9/11 on the development of popular book and movie series Twilight, World War II and its effect on box cake mix. Global policies and culture are intrinsically interlinked with the physical world around us. Every step we take and every political action has a massive impact on the legacy that we leave future generations. It’s essential to recognize that all issues, at their core, will intersect in some way. Of course, it is impossible to find a “one size fits all” solution, but understanding that every action we take will have a different, reciprocating response is essential as we move forward. These butterfly effects are everywhere.

In 2023, the Recording Academy faced a new dilemma: is a song eligible for the Grammys if it was created by artificial intelligence? The artist Ghostwriter submitted “Heart on My Sleeve,” a piece he wrote the lyrics to, but used AI to sing in a style similar to Drake and The Weeknd. Originally, Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. seemed willing to allow it, saying that because the lyrics were written by a person, it was eligible in the songwriting category. However, he quickly backtracked, ultimately deeming it ineligible because the vocals were not legally obtained.

This uncertainty reflects a broader conflict over the role of AI in the entertainment industry. Those in favor of it laud its potential benefits, but others decry its usage, positing that artists are losing jobs to machines. Nonetheless, AI has burst onto the scene, leaving policymakers scrambling to catch up. Moving forward, how can innovation using artificial intelligence be balanced with the protection of artists’ livelihoods?

One of creators’ main concerns is that their works are being used without their consent or compensation. To output songs, AI analyzes existing creative works, from both public domain and copyrighted material, to train itself and learn patterns. Then, when given an input (for example, a short lyrical prompt), the machine can create a piece based on the next most probable outcome. Thus, outputs pull strongly from the artists’ voices and songs that the machine scraped, or captured information from, using licensed data without permission.

Another pressing issue is the rise of deepfake technology. “Heart on my Sleeve” used Drake and The Weeknd’s voices, replicating them without consent. As legal guidelines surrounding AI are not currently developed, it is unclear how or if creators would get compensated for their likeness. In fact, a major objective of the recent SAG-AFTRA strike was to create “a contract that explicitly demands AI regulations to protect writers and the works they create,” demonstrating that this issue is at the forefront of artists’ minds.

To protect creators and artists, new legislation must be developed. As the Ghostwriter debate spotlighted, there are few legal guidelines on AI usage in the entertainment industry, with copyright regulations being particularly unclear. Because the AI that created “Heart on my Sleeve” was trained on copyrighted examples, it replicated Universal Music Group’s producer tag, allowing them to prove a copyright violation. If the tag hadn’t been present, though, the song might still be available, despite using Drake’s voice.

More broadly, current copyright laws protect original and fixed works, meaning they were “independently created by a human author” and permanently exist. If anyone other than the author or creator reproduces it, it is considered “copyright infringement” and is punishable by law. However, it is uncertain whether AI-created replicas, particularly ones that alter creative works in some form, would qualify as infringement.

The Copyright Office has recognized this gap and is currently taking action to bridge it. In 2023, it began inspecting and analyzing laws and issued an inquiry about public opinion. On July 31, 2024, Part 1 of the Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence was published, “urgently” calling for new federal legislation.

With all of these potential issues, it can be easy to believe AI is an ominous force. However, with adequate regulation, this new technology can bring a multitude of benefits. AI is already commonly used to smooth vocals and engineer sound, and is also a strong tool for inspiration. Additionally, it has been utilized to bring lost voices back to life. For example, the Beatles used AI to isolate John Lennon’s voice from a demo recorded before he died, enabling them to release a final record in 2023 titled “Now and Then,” featuring Lennon’s voice over 40 years after his death.

Applications of this new technology also exist outside of the music industry. This July, Jennifer Wexton, a House Representative, used AI to make a speech in her own voice after an aggressive neurological disorder stole her ability to speak. Even more incredibly, researchers have implanted devices in the brains of people with ALS who are unable to speak, restoring their vocal communication. This technology employs AI to “…actually [translate] brain activity into speech.” As these devices are further tested and implemented, they will continue to return voices to those who have lost theirs, improving quality of life for many.

An important note, however, is that these voices were replicated with their owners’ or owners’ estates’ consent. Without obtaining this, the same ethical concerns apply as with living artists. But when AI is used with the permission of those it is mimicking, it can both revitalize voices and stories that would otherwise be lost to time and make music more accessible. With the implementation of new guidelines and laws, AI can be a strong creative force driving innovation and improving quality of life.

All in all, just because AI has the capability to harm creative industries, this does not mean that it will. There is often a learning curve with new technology, as it is difficult to predict possible repercussions early. For example, the submission of “Heart on my Sleeve” to the Grammys prompted new guidelines surrounding the use of AI in music, demonstrating that industries can respond to a changing environment.

There are some implicit dangers to creators with its growth, but by adding more regulations, artists can be protected. This will allow the true positive potential of AI to be reached, including giving voices back to those who have lost them. AI is a tool, pushing the boundaries of what is possible, providing inspiration, education, regeneration, and much more. We should not be afraid of progress; rather, we should be proactive with our protections. At the end of the day, AI is nothing without people.

Long before modern political decision-making tools such as polling or data analytics, leaders consulted an age-old method to understand their fate: astrology. Whether to guide military campaigns or to predict the death of a king, the stars were seen as a roadmap for political life. While today’s leaders may not openly consult the heavens, astrology’s role in shaping politics persists by influencing and framing the beliefs of those in power and the general public.

Historically, astrology has strongly influenced many political decisions from Ancient Greece to Medieval Europe. Astrology was a part of medicine, philosophy, and astronomy and influenced intellectual discourse. In Renaissance Italy, for example, leaders such as the Duke of Milan and the Grand Duke of Tuscany consulted astrological predictions regarding their fates, especially concerning their health and life expectancy. These predictions were more than personal curiosity– they were crucial factors in preparing for political transitions as factions would vie for power based on these insights. King Corvinus in Renaissance Hungary was also known to rely on astrology for decision-making during wars, which helped to reinforce his status by interpreting omens that aligned with his political goals.

Leaders in 18th-century Imperial Russia heavily relied on astrology for decision-making. At the time, astrology was not seen as outdated or superstitious but rather intertwined with both personal and political decisions. People would turn to astrology for insights into their career, health, family, or political outcomes. During his reign, Peter the Great introduced printed calendars that incorporated astrology in an effort to modernize Russia and reinforce the image of a stable and legitimate monarchy. Russian nobles often commissioned horoscopes for themselves, reflecting the common practice among elites of consulting astrology in times of political instability, especially after the death of Peter the Great.

As politics evolved and we learned more about space and the universe, astrology’s role in politics and everyday life changed along with it. In the United States’ early years, celestial metaphors became more Democratic and Republican. The stars on the flag were said to symbolize a “new constellation” of unity and equality within the union. This represents how the individual states were seen as part of a collective system as opposed to a single monarch, often symbolized by the sun. Many influential academics in the late 18th century in the U.S. used celestial ideas to discuss political life.

World War II Britain provides a modern example that demonstrates the influence of astrology on political events. Astrological predictions were often published in mainstream newspapers, primarily aimed at working-class women. Despite government fears of the newspaper predictions gaining too much influence in wartime, spreading misinformation, and lowering morale, the predictions typically boosted morale by offering reassurance.

In the modern era, astrology’s impact has changed from being a widely held belief to something that influences politics insofar as individuals believe in it. After an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, the first lady, Nancy Reagan, controversially consulted Joan Quigley, a well-known astrologer, because she hoped she would help the president avoid further danger. In Nancy Reagan’s memoir, she explained that she turned to Quigley for advice on the timing of the president’s activities. The former first lady downplayed the influence of the astrologer due to criticism, but Quigley later revealed that her guidance went beyond scheduling. She advised the president and first lady on diplomatic matters, including Cold War politics and the timing of the president’s cancer surgery.

Although Nancy Reagan provides a high-profile example of astrology’s use in modern political life, the impact of astrology on the everyday person may be the most influential aspect of the belief in contemporary times. Astrology is popular among younger voter demographics, specifically Gen Z and Millennials and those that seek alternative spiritual systems, who may use its insights to guide their decisions or to view politicians through the lens of astrology. 

There is abundant research regarding non-religious people’s tendency to distrust institutions. Patrikious and Huhe propose expanding this research by investigating how supernatural beliefs, such as astrology, impact trust in institutions. They move beyond the simple division of religious and non-religious by separating non-religious people into non-believers and “heterodox” believers—those who believe in astrology, luck, or other non-traditional beliefs rather than conventional religion. The authors found that the secularization process does not necessarily lead to rational science-endorsing people but instead creates a group of citizens distrustful of both science and public institutions. These findings are significant because heterodox beliefs are often associated with resistance to authority and have a history of fueling political dissent, which can be seen in astrology believers’ involvement in countercultural movements like environmentalism and feminism.

Astrology never entirely disappeared as a belief system, but it has certainly evolved. In modern times, astrology’s direct influence on political decisions has decreased, but it still holds a cultural presence that impacts political movements and public perception. From TikTok astrologers who predict presidential elections to a quarter of Americans saying they believe in astrology to French youth turning towards astrology during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that astrology’s influence on politics is here to stay.

By: Claire Scafidi

Introduction

Despite Thai people making up just 0.1% of the United States’s population, there are 10,000 Thai restaurants across the country, making the cuisine one of the most popular choices among Americans. Why is the ratio of restaurants to immigrants disproportionate? How did Thai food become so popular in the U.S.? The answer is found in a policy Thailand invented: gastrodiplomacy. 

What is Gastrodiplomacy?

The term “gastrodiplomacy” was first used in a 2002 article by The Economist discussing Thailand’s Global Thai Program. Food has been a part of traditional diplomacy since ancient times, with diplomats being treated to incredible dinners. Food is highly personal to one’s family, culture, and individual sense of self, and considering the personal is political, food has the potential to be deeply political. Gastrodiplomacy can improve a state’s image using soft power and name-brand recognition. Soft power uses persuasive power and cultural institutions to exert a state’s goals. Cultural practices are a new important feature of soft power as food can create cultural awareness as foreigners begin to recognize and appreciate the culture. Studying gastrodiplomacy and its effects is challenging, which leads to a need for more empirical data supporting the term. Results of gastrodiplomacy include tourism, increased restaurant opening, food exports, and inbound foreign direct investment. Gastrodiplomacy broadly seems to encourage exports for countries with a lesser democracy level as food transcends the issue of democracy. Gastrodiplomacy aims to influence “the people” rather than the “elite” to increase its audience and international influence. Food influences our decision-making, as sharing a meal increases positive social behavior. Through gastrodiplomacy, the country’s platform is expanded to foreign countries. In Thailand, restaurants serve as cultural diplomats, creating a positive image for the country. Since Thailand’s program, several other countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Peru, have forayed into the realm of gastrodiplomacy. 

Global Thai Program 

In 2002, the Global Thai Program was created as a diplomatic initiative to increase Thai restaurants worldwide by implementing policies to make it easier for Thai restaurants to import Thai food, train Thai chefs, and access financing plans. Specifically, the goal was to increase exports and its name-brand recognition. Between 10,000 and 15,000 Thai restaurants were opened on behalf of the Global Thai Program. Thailand used gastrodiplomacy to increase agricultural exports and rebrand itself as the ‘kitchen to the world.’ The explicit goal of the Global Thai Program in 2002 was to increase the global demand for Thai food by internationalizing the cuisine. The success of the Global Thai Program has transformed Thai food from being perceived as ‘exotic’ to becoming a part of mainstream American take-out culture– a clear indication of the impact of gastrodiplomacy. 

Following the success of the Global Thai Program, Thailand launched a second initiative: Thailand: Kitchen of the World. This initiative aimed to introduce Thais to their unique culinary history and culture and teach foreigners about Thai cuisine. The Thai government played a crucial role in this, encouraging Thai investors to invest in restaurants, providing large budgets, creating Thai culinary schools explicitly geared towards chefs aiming to work abroad, and loaning money to foreign Thai restaurants. The proactive role of the Thai government in promoting Thai cuisine and culture through these initiatives is a testament to their commitment to preserving and sharing their culinary heritage. 

Pad Thai 

Pad Thai, a dish widely known in the U.S., was a significant part of the Global Thai Program despite its origins in a Chinese dish. The flavors of Pad Thai are distinctly Thai, and it was primarily invented and popularized in 1938 during a rice shortage to promote rice noodles, which used 50% less grain. Using ‘pad, ‘ a Thai word for fried, this innovation distinguished Pad Thai in Thai culture. The Thai prime minister at the time, Plaek Phibunsongkram, emphasized the importance of a national culture and a national dish. During World War II, Pad Thai also created a sense of nationalism in Thailand as a cheap street food option that many Thai families relied on. The cultural significance of Pad Thai, its unique flavors, and its role in Thai history make it a dish that connects people to the rich and diverse Thai culture. 

Today, Thai Food, especially Pad Thai, is a popular American take-out choice due to the success of the Global Thai Program. Its distinct Thai flavors and function as a street food has made it a unique part of Thai culture. The essential ingredients of Pad Thai include meat, tamarind, palm sugar, fish sauce, eggs, dried shrimp, garlic, tofu, salted radish, peanuts, rice noodles, and bean sprouts. However, the recipe for Pad Thai is open to interpretation, leading to various delicious and unique variations. Marie Wilson wrote “Siamese Cookery,” the first Thai Cookbook published in the United States. It was a cookbook that simplified and Americanized Thai recipes. 

Next time you eat a variation of Pad Thai or drive past one of the numerous Thai restaurants in your city, remember the origins of gastrodiplomacy and the soft power covertly exerted.

In April 2023, the Japanese anime TV series Hell’s Paradise first aired in Japan. The story, set during the Tokugawa Shogunate era, centers around a death row criminal who accepts a pardon offer in exchange for finding the elixir of immortality in the newly discovered semi-mythical island known as Shinsenkyo. A major aspect of the show that immediately stands out is the prevalence of religious influences, symbolism, and imagery incorporated into the setting and embodied by characters of Hell’s Paradise. For instance, Buddhist and Taoist statues are found across Shinsenkyo, and the inhabitants of the island carry items associated with those religions like the shakujō, a type of staff carried by Buddhist monks. Several characters are also named after important religious figures. The Tensen, the primary antagonists of the show, have aliases which reference major figures in Buddhism: Tao Fa is known by the alias Ratna Taisei, and Ju Fa has the alias Ashuku Taitei. Both of these aliases refer to different Buddhas in the Mahayana and Vajrayana sects. What may not be obvious at first however, is that many of these religious figures and concepts originate in India, not Japan. The historic cultural influence of India on Japan is incredibly significant yet is often overlooked in contemporary conversations about Japan. Modern anime, such as Hell’s Paradise, The Heike Story, and Noragami act as a unique lens through which this cross-cultural influence can be examined.

Within Hell’s Paradise, perhaps the most prominent example of Indian influences is the name of the show itself, which in Japanese is Jigokuraku. The title is a play on words, combining the Japanese words jigoku (hell), and gokuraku (paradise). Gokuraku comes from a Chinese translation of the Sanskrit word Sukhavati, meaning blissful. Sanskrit is a language that was historically spoken in South Asia and used as the primary liturgical language for many early Buddhist texts. Tensen character names from Hell’s Paradise further illustrate this cross-cultural influence. The alias of Tao Fa, Ratna Taisei, is a reference to Ratnasambhava, a Buddha first mentioned in the Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra. This sutra, or composition of literary texts, was originally written in India in Sanskrit. The alias of another Tensen, Mu Dan, is Enthroned Amoghavajra. Amoghavajra was a Buddhist monk of Indian origin who translated many Buddhist texts into Chinese and helped establish the religion in East Asia. Amoghavajra’s journey is a perfect example to illustrate how Buddhism and Sanskrit eventually spread to Japan from India.

Buddhism as a religion was founded by Siddhartha Gautama, who lived in Northern India between 563 and 483 BCE. The religion developed from the social traditions of Hinduism, the dominant religion of India. The two religions share many core concepts and terms, including karma, nirvana, and dharma. After establishing itself in India, Buddhism quickly spread to other regions of Asia. Several Indian monarchs and monks were instrumental in facilitating the early dissemination of Buddhism. The Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, who ruled from 268-232 BCE, sent a diplomatic mission led by his son Mahinda to Sri Lanka to establish the religion there. Later, Kanshika I of the Kushan Empire patronized Buddhism and enabled its transmission along the Silk Road during the 2nd century CE. As a result of these efforts, Lokaksema, a Kushan monk born during Kanshika’s reign, traveled to China to translate several Buddhist texts from Sanskrit to Chinese, laying the groundwork for Buddhism to spread in the region. By the time of the Sui and Tang dynasties of China, Buddhism had been established as a state religion, due in part to the work of Indian monks like Amoghavajra, who brought over more Buddhist scriptures from South India and Sri Lanka. From China, Buddhism spread through Korea to Japan, where it became the state religion during the Nara period (710-784 CE). Even in Japan, Indian monks played a direct role in transmitting Buddhist teachings. One key figure was Bodhisena, an Indian monk from Madurai who traveled to Japan in 736 CE, where he helped establish the Kegon school of Buddhism.

Such efforts enabled Buddhism to become one of the two major religions in Japan alongside Shintoism. As of 2021, over 46% of the Japanese population were adherents of Buddhism. The prevalence and impact of Indian religion in Japan cannot be understated, with there being tens of thousands of Buddhist temples scattered throughout the entire country. Even one of the most famous Japanese philosophies, Zen, developed from Indian Buddhism. The term Zen itself derives from a Chinese transliteration of the Sanskrit term dhyāna (meditation). 

Apart from Zen, various other Buddhist traditions in Japan can trace their origins to India as well. For instance, Pure Land Buddhism is a school that believes that rebirth in the Amitabha Buddha’s Pure Realm, the Western Paradise of Sukhavati, is attainable to those who sincerely invoke Amithaba’s name in devotion. The school is based upon three sutras, the Amitāyus Vipaśyana Sūtra, Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, and the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra. The latter two sutras were originally composed in India and later transmitted and systematized throughout the 6th and 7th centuries in China and Japan.Today, Pure Land Buddhism is one of the most widely practiced forms of Mahayana Buddhism in East Asia, and this prevalence has led to it being referenced in various Japanese anime. The idea and terminology of Gokuraku as a paradise, mentioned in Hell’s Paradise, derives from the concept of Sukhavati as a Pure Realm in Buddhism. Gokuraku, sometimes known as Jodo, is also mentioned in The Heike Story, an anime based off of the Heike Monogatari, a historic Japanese epic compiled in the 1300s. In The Heike Story, Taira no Tokuko, the Empress consort of Japan, sings a song lamenting that women cannot reach the Pure Land, a reflection of the historical beliefs of the school. This illustrates both how influential Pure Land Buddhism was historically and its continued prominence in modern Japanese pop culture.

While Buddhism is a major religion in Japan, it is not the only religion. Many Japanese people practice Buddhism alongside Shintoism, incorporating aspects of both faiths in a syncretic manner. This cultural fusion can be seen in the anime Noragami. Noragami takes place in a universe where Japanese Shinto gods exist alongside humans in a parallel world called the Far Shore. Some of the gods depicted in Noragami include the Seven Gods of Fortune, or Shichifukujin. Of the Shichifukujin, three originate from Indian deities: Daikokuten, Bishamonten, and Benzaiten. Daikokuten is a direct translation of Mahakala, a Buddhist deity also associated with the Hindu god Shiva. Bishamonten derives from the Sanskrit name Vaisravana, an epithet of the Hindu god of wealth Kubera. Benzaiten originates from Saraswati, the Hindu god of knowledge, art, and literature. These deities were incorporated from Hinduism into Buddhist tradition in India and then transmitted to Japan, where they became part of the Shinto-Buddhist cultural tradition. The impact of these deities on Japanese society goes beyond representations in media, as there are major temples dedicated to the Shichifukujin in Tokyo, where some local residents go on yearly pilgrimages to these places of worship.

Japanese culture is typically viewed as being incredibly influential in its own right, with aspects of Japanese history, cuisine, language, and art having made major impacts on Western culture in the past few decades. However, it remains important to remember that Japan itself has been influenced by other cultures in the past. The presence of Indian religious and linguistic elements in recent Japanese anime is just another reminder of the shared linguistic, religious, and philosophical history between South and East Asia.

Photo Credit: Mahin Gonela. Screenshots from the Noragami, The Heike Story, and Hell’s Paradise episodes.

“Golf is a game whose aim is to hit a very small ball into an even smaller hole, with weapons singularly ill-designed for the purpose.” In this quote, Winston Churchill expressed the challenge of a game that never definitely submits to the skill of the player; however secure one’s position might be, golf would find some weak spot and again prevail. Every day in corporate settings, women in leadership deal with gendered difficulties that are resistant to most solutions, just like those in golf. Even behind the sport itself is a profound history of sexism, which raises the question of whether or not golf should still be used as a major form of networking. Golf is the only sport used as a tool for career advancement in corporate settings, and yet its male-only past still precedes its name, evidenced by the popular acronym “gentlemen only, ladies forbidden.” How does the use of golf to network worsen barriers faced by women in corporate leadership roles?

Outside of the office, female golfers were not offered a spot on the green until they fought a long and difficult gender-based battle. The Masters, the first major professional golf tournament of the year, refused to admit women to their host club, Augusta National, until 2012. In 2002, with the National Council of Women’s Organizations, Martha Burk wrote a nine-sentence letter to Augusta National urging reevaluation of their male-only membership policies. The letter didn’t make headlines until chairman William “Hootie” Johnson caused a public relations nightmare, responding on the behalf of Augusta National, “We do not intend to become a trophy in their [NCWO’s] display case. There may well come a day when women will be invited to join our membership but that timetable will be ours, and not at the point of a bayonet… [Augusta] will not be bullied, threatened, or intimidated,” Johnson continued. 

Augusta National and the Masters never fully recovered from the damage to their reputation that Hootie Johnson provoked. When the club finally extended membership to women in 2012, many remembered his sentiment that promising women entrance does not guarantee acceptance. Professional golf has its roots in male power, and the casual use of golf in the workplace to network upholds male power further. Having noted such resistance to change within the golfing community, as a method of networking the sport may be damaging to the mobility of women in corporate leadership.

The glass ceiling, a conceptual barrier prohibiting racial minorities and women from advancing professionally, is made up of several specific obstacles. One of these obstacles is the ostracism of women from informal networks through the sport of golf: namely, the grass ceiling. Exactly how women are excluded from informal networks created through golf is by way of the contemporary American model of gender equality. Under the modern system, women are expected to engage in a career equal in workload to that of a man’s while simultaneously maintaining traditional caretaking responsibilities. “The influx of women into the economy has not been accompanied by a cultural understanding of marriage and work that would make this transition smooth,” (Hochschild, 2012). Referring to the lion’s share of childcare that mothers take as the second shift, sociologist Arlie Hochschild noted that most working fathers have yet to spend more time caretaking. This time is instead dedicated to career-building, and indeed, most working men golf during the free time that most working women spend attending to familial responsibilities. When a network-building activity such as golfing takes place outside of work hours, women struggle more to participate. In tandem with stereotyping and biases against female golfers, it becomes almost impossible for women to reap the benefits of golfing in corporate settings that men have been able to.

As the green helps build careers, it is imperative that women are granted access to the networks that men form while playing golf. Shifting the narrative within golf to recognize the value of women’s participation would benefit executives of all genders, considering that women are now integral to the economy. Nevertheless, traditional caregiving roles will long remain an obstacle for women in positions of leadership, regardless of the avenue they choose to build their careers. But this can be mollified through the reallocation of time between working parents and cultural acceptance of corporate women in golf. Dismantling the grass ceiling may enable the corporate world to relieve female executives of power scarcities, in progress towards a future in business where influence is awarded equally.

Photo Credit: https://golfweek.usatoday.com/gallery/masters-2024-sunday-final-round-augusta-national-photo-gallery/

Tennis holds a deeper narrative beyond the court. It intertwines with the intricate fabric of international politics, serving as a mirror to social dynamics and diplomatic relations across the globe. From historic matches that shattered racial barriers to tournaments serving as platforms for activism, tennis embodies a rich tapestry of diplomatic ties, cultural exchanges, and social shifts. 

Breaking Barriers

One of the most poignant examples of tennis’s influence on international politics is witnessed in the historic victory of Althea Gibson at Wimbledon in 1959. As the first African American to win a Grand Slam title, Gibson’s triumph signified a breakthrough for racial equality not only in the United States but on a global scale. Her victory challenged entrenched racial prejudices and reshaped diplomatic perceptions of the United States abroad. Gibson’s achievement served as a diplomatic tool, fostering goodwill and admiration for American ideals of equality and opportunity. Her achievements came at a time when the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum in the United States, and her success on the tennis court symbolized progress toward racial equality and inspired many African Americans to pursue their dreams despite facing systemic racism and discrimination.

In the early 1970s, amid the Cold War and strained relations between the two countries, the exchange of table tennis players between the United States and China marked a significant turning point. This “ping-pong diplomacy” helped to ease tensions and open channels of communication between the two nations. For the Chinese players, hosting American athletes represented a significant departure from the isolationist policies of the time. They were curious about American culture and eager to interact with their counterparts from the United States. Similarly, American players were fascinated by their visit to China, finding themselves immersed in a culture vastly different from their own.

The players’ interactions both on and off the table sparked curiosity and mutual respect, and ultimately led to high-level diplomatic talks. President Richard Nixon made a historic visit to China in 1972, which marked the beginning of a thaw in relations between the two superpowers. Through the simple act of playing a sport, table tennis demonstrated the power of sports in breaking down barriers and fostering understanding between ideological adversaries. 

Unity

Beyond its diplomatic implications, tennis has also served as a powerful platform for activism and unity. Arthur Ashe, a trailblazer both on and off the court, epitomized the intersection between sports and social change. As the first black male to win a Grand Slam singles title, Ashe used his platform to advocate for civil rights and social justice. His activism extended beyond the confines of the tennis court, as he campaigned against apartheid in South Africa and racial injustice in the United States. He also founded a foundation in his name that has been a leader in AIDS education and awareness. On top of this, he funded many organizations that aimed at helping poorer communities by exposing them to tennis, especially the younger populous. Ashe’s courageous stance against systemic oppression resonated globally, inspiring a new generation of athletes to use their voices for social change, such as Serena Williams, Coco Gauff, Frances Tiafoe, and Ben Shelton.

Tennis, like other major sports, has a world competition known as the Davis Cup, where the best players from 150+ countries compete together. Many players boycotted the Davis Cup in 1978 in protest against the International Tennis Federation’s decision to hold the finals in South Africa. At that time, South Africa was under apartheid, a system of racial infamous segregation and discrimination. Many players and countries viewed participating in South Africa as endorsing apartheid, which went against the principles of equality and basic morality. The boycotts sent a powerful message of condemnation and sparked international dialogue.

In 1973, the famous “Battle of the Sexes” match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs captivated the world. Beyond its significance as a highly anticipated tennis match, it represented a pivotal moment in the fight for gender equality. King’s victory over Riggs, watched by over 50 million people, not only shattered stereotypes about women’s athleticism but also ignited conversations about gender roles and expectations. The match garnered widespread international attention and catalyzed the women’s rights movement, challenging patriarchal norms.

Away from smashing serves and hitting groundstrokes, tennis icons serve as cultural ambassadors and symbols of national identity, wielding significant soft power on the international stage. Players like Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams, and Novak Djokovic are revered not only for their athletic achievements but also for their influence in shaping perceptions of their respective countries. Their success on the tennis court enhances the global reputation and soft power of their nations, fostering positive diplomatic relations and cultural exchange. 

Through players’ performances and philanthropic endeavors, tennis stars contribute to diplomacy and global cooperation, reinforcing the idea that sports can be a powerful tool for promoting peace, understanding, and goodwill among nations. By understanding the interplay between tennis and international politics, we gain insight into the transformative power of sports in fostering understanding, cooperation, and unity across nations.

Photo: https://www.iol.co.za/sport/tennis/us-open/coco-gauff-hails-williams-sisters-as-her-inspiration-after-winning-us-open-title-22e5f1d0-4a2d-4a48-a8bc-f7fc304e17b8

Over the last several years, human rights have been at the heart of much of the widely known international news. The #BoycottMulan campaign, which began in 2019, was a response to a comment by the film’s star supporting Hong Kong police in their crackdown on political demonstrations. The film also drew negative media attention for its use of the Xinjiang region, where China is known to abridge the human rights of Uighurs. In 2022, international outcry arose when Iranian Mahsa Amini died as a result of brutality from the morality police who punished her for not wearing her hijab properly. Today, issues concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict are often couched in terms of human rights. American activism on issues like these demonstrate that they care about universal human rights. However, while they protest abuses, they are simultaneously undergoing a moral revolution that undermines support for the very existence of universal human rights.

A key component of this revolution is the rise of moral relativism. This ideology has staked a claim on a large portion of our population and is manifested in common positions on cultural hot topics. For example, “My body, my choice” can be justified two ways. One way is to suggest the primary moral issue concerns controlling women. The other signifies advocates believe morality is relative to the individual, or at least no one has a superior claim to have figured morals out, and so they should not force their moral interpretation on others. Either way, these interpretations of the refrain are directly or effectively examples of moral relativism because they indicate that it is fine to have different opinions on moral issues, but you cannot enforce yours on others. 

While the abortion example is just one particular interpretation of a particular issue, there is evidence that such moral relativism is fairly prevalent in the United States. Philosophy professor Thomas Polzler teamed up with psychologist Jennifer Wright to study this very topic. In a 2019 study of about 100 students and workers, they found that moral realism, which is the belief that morals are an objective and universal reality, was less common than anti-realism, which encompasses both the belief that morals do not exist at all and the belief that they are subjectively determined. More specifically, Polzler and Wright found that 64% of respondents believed moral truth was either determined by their own or their culture’s dominant moral beliefs. A much larger study of about 1,000 interviews in 2015 confirms Polzler and Wright’s conclusion. Barna Group, a private, non-partisan organization, found that 57% of American adults agreed that knowing what is right or wrong is a matter of personal experience. 65% of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with the view that “every culture must determine what is acceptable morality for its people” while only about a third of respondents believed moral truth is absolute.

This moral revolution has significant implications for American support of human rights. The concept of universal human rights presumes at least a basic level of universal and objective morality. Universal human rights suggests that there are certain behaviors that no one, no matter their culture or beliefs or background, can engage in without actually wronging someone else. However, the erosion in belief in objective morality in the US has triggered a need to reconsider whether our culture’s philosophy justifies support for universal human rights at all. If one group of people can justly proclaim another person or group immoral, then the morality of the criticized behavior must supersede culture. If we are right to proclaim China to be immoral for sending Uighurs to concentration camps or Israel for failing to protect Palestinian civilians or Hamas for waging war using civilian human shields, then there must be at least some basic moral code that exists above the individual or cultural level. However, if we adhere to the ideologies that the research suggests are taking hold of Americans, then we have no basis for declaring another individual or culture in the wrong for behaviors it engages in outside our borders. For if each culture decides its own morality, then it can decide it is not immoral to elevate one people group within the culture and oppress another. If morality depends on the individual, then we do not even have grounds to judge others in our own culture, let alone in another. If either of these ideologies are true, our condemnation of a foreign culture or state has no place pressuring them to change because we have no right to tell anyone else what they should and should not do. Our condemnations would be nothing more than commentaries on cultural differences or expressions of personal preferences. 

While this shift to moral relativism has not stopped many from speaking out against human rights violations yet, belief in our domestic lives that morality is individually subjective, or at least culturally determined, philosophically undermines our condemnation of international abuses and cripples our ability to address them. If people truly believe that they are right in their condemnations, they must believe in at least some universal morality. If we want to be credible actors on the issue of human rights, we must have a standard by which to identify them. Without universal morality providing consistent guiding moral principles, even if we agree to support human rights because doing so feels right, disagreement over what counts as a right or as an infringement will increase. We will face increasing challenges in our engagement with this field because each protester and decision maker will be guided by his or her own preferences and intuitions rather than by a shared objective standard to work towards.

Americans have a decision before us. We can continue along the path of this moral revolution, upholding relativist views in our personal lives at the cost of having a justification for condemning atrocities beyond ourselves or our society, or we can return to moral objectivism as the first step to upholding human dignity through the support and defense of human rights. This return will not resolve all of the troubles and challenges we face in upholding human rights. However, without even admitting to the existence of universal morality, we remove the very possibility of there being a reliable guide for identifying human rights or a reason to engage in such issues beyond the manifestation of our own preferences. We must reverse course before the moral revolution taking hold in the United States finishes its exchange of justification for universal human rights with the affirmation of individual and cultural relativism.

Photo Credit: https://www.pexels.com/photo/handwritten-message-on-brown-background-6185320/.