China’s online censorship and cyber-security protocols – known commonly as the “Great Firewall” – are known for being among the strictest, and most far-reaching, in the whole of cyberspace. The degree to which China controls what its citizens do and don’t see online is equal parts technologically impressive and alarmingly worrisome for anyone who believes in the free flow of ideas and communication. The Chinese government, of course, is very proud of their internet censorship program – so much so that they’ve created a operatic theme to celebrate their accomplishments. Yes, a soaring anthem for internet censorship:


[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” caption=””Cyberspace Spirit””]

The Wall Street Journal, citing China’s state run Youth Daily website, reports the song (whose title translates roughly to “Cyberspace Spirit) was created by the Cyberspace Administration of China’s choral group, its lyrics lauding the “cleanliness and clarity of China’s uniquely managed Internet” (one, roughly translated, reads: “Internet Power! From the distant cosmos to the home we long for”).

While odes to censorship – no matter how rousing and anthemic – are an Orwellian nightmare set to music, the fact that the government agency tasked with managing China’s internet has its own theme song is, in and of itself…kind of impressive, actually. How many federal departments have an anthem here in the United States? None.

Here then are just a few suggestions, should the U.S. choose to up its agency swag game:

Department Of Education – “Hot For Teacher,” Van Halen

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

What better way to get young minds excited for a lifetime of learning than with Alex and Eddie Van Halen’s rollicking drum and guitar intro? (Runner up: Husker Du – “Something I Learned Today)

Department Of Transportation – “Trains And Boats And Planes,” Dionne Warwick

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

One of her earliest hits, “Trains And Boats And Planes” saw the luminous Dionne Warwick musing on all the ways people get around (Runner up: The Cars – “Drive)

Internal Revenue Service – “Taxman,” The Beatles

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

Easily the world’s catchiest tune about the harsh realities of fiscal policy. (Runner up: Barret Strong – “Money [That’s What I Want])

National Security Agency – “Every Breath You Take,” The Police

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

A creepy song about a jilted ex-lover becomes an even creepier descriptor for the surveillance state. (Runner up: Hall & Oats – “Private Eyes)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – “Intergalactic,” The Beastie Boys

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

How could the prospect of astronauts doing their The Right Stuff-esque shuttle walk to the Beastie’s bangin’ beats not get you excited for space exploration? (Runner up: Peter Schilling – “Major Tom [Coming Home]”)

Department Of Housing And Urban Development – “Our House,” Madness

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

British ska/new-wavers Madness paint a picture of everyday domestic live centered around their house, in the middle of the street (Runner up: Starship – “We Built This City)

National Park Service – “Tiptoe Through The Tulips,” Tiny Tim

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

Weirdo ukulele minstrel Tiny Tim pens an ode to frolicking in nature with your loved onces (Runner up: Blur – “Park Life)

Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives – “Ace Of Spades,” Motörhead

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

Actually a proclamation of the band’s devil-may-care attitude, no song viscerally conjures to mind the volatile combination of booze, smoke, and weaponry the ATFE is charged with regulating quite like Motörhead’s biggest hit. (Runner up: Belly, ft. Snoop Dog – “I Drink I Smoke)

  • Today’s obsession with authenticity isn’t new – being true to yourself has troubled philosophers for centuries
    Photo credit: Qi Yang/Moment via Getty ImagesStressing over authenticity isn’t unique to the social media age.

    Today’s youth cherish “authenticity,” but is it a virtue? According to a report from Ernst & Young, more than 9 in 10 Gen Z respondents indicated that being authentic and true to yourself is extremely or very important. In fact, most of them claimed authenticity is more important than any other personal value.

    This finding is not all that surprising: All of us live in an age where we’re bombarded by social media and artificial intelligence – when striving to be your authentic self becomes an increasingly difficult task.

    Yet, even if it has somehow become a common goal, it is unclear how many of us can truly define the “authenticity” that we say we are pursuing. I think it’s also worth asking whether sincerity and authenticity are perennial human virtues or just obsessions of this technological age.

    As a scholar in the history of political thought and American political development, I think two philosophers can help us understand this problem and how to deal with it: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Martin Heidegger.

    Sincerity: A counter to modernity

    Rousseau, the 18th-century philosopher from Geneva, arrived in the wake of earlier Enlightenment philosophers, such as HobbesLocke and Montesquieu.

    These thinkers laid many of the foundations for how people understand liberal democracy today, especially the emphasis on individual natural rights – to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson’s later formulation, all human beings are “endowed” with these rights at birth or by nature. In particular, Hobbes popularized the idea of generating a commonwealth in order to escape the uncertainty in a state of nature where self-preservation is fundamental. Locke also emphasized the right to property, while Montesquieu saw the importance of international commerce, among other aspects, including the separation of powers.

    But Rousseau became famous for his criticisms of the individualistic civil society born out of their thought. In the modern commercial republic, the fixation turned to luxury rather than duty. “Ancient politicians spoke incessantly about morals and virtue,” he wrote; “those of our time talk only of business and money.”

    A man with dark eyebrows poses while wearing a gray wig and brown-yellow coat.
    A portrait of Rousseau by Maurice Quentin de La Tour. Musée Antoine-Lécuyer/Wikimedia Commons

    For Rousseau, modern society was a conformist “herd” where everyone hides behind a “veil” of politeness. People wear masks to hide their selfishness, deceiving others in order to satisfy their own desires.

    In this way, he argued, human beings are actually enslaved to each other: While each person pursues self-interest, success requires getting others to see some “profit” in helping each other. The rich need the “services” of the poor just as the poor need the “help” of the rich. Anyone who refuses to yield to this entire enterprise “will die in poverty and oblivion.”

    Sincerity is the path to self-realization in Rousseau’s political philosophy, according to political science professor Arthur MelzerAs Melzer states, “We want, as fully as possible, to become what we are, to realize ourselves, to become as alive and actualized as possible, to really live.” For him, Rousseau considered sincerity to be what puts us on “the path” to true human excellence. It’s the “countercultural virtue” needed to oppose the hypocrisy found in modern society.

    Authenticity: Uncovering the self

    While Rousseau extolled sincerity, 20th-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger significantly influenced today’s understanding of a related idea: authenticity.

    In his magnum opus, “Being and Time,” Heidegger considered how the self gets lost in the public world. In everyday life, individuals think and exist in terms of the other people they encounter – a way of being he called the “they-self.” He stated, “Everyone is the other, and no one is himself.”

    Heidegger believed that people are inauthentic when they’re driven into “uninhibited hustle” within the world, tranquilizing themselves from anxiety about the true meaning of human life and its eventual end.

    In his later work, Heidegger argued that everything and everyone in contemporary life had become technological, treated as raw material for “exploitation.” For example, in the technological age, the Rhine River is not a “river” but merely “something at our command,” a supplier of “water power.”

    A stone relief etching of the face of a man with a mustache.
    A memorial to Heidegger at the Heidegger House in Messkirch, Germany. Andreas Praefcke/Wikimedia CommonsCC BY

    “Everywhere everything is ordered to stand by, to be immediately at hand,” he claimed, “indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering.” This extends even to human beings themselves, now referred to as “human resources.”

    By contrast, the authentic human being is called to choose and be the self, rather than being for the sake of others. They don’t flee death, and in discovering the world in this way, it feels like clearing away “concealments and obscurities.”

    Still, Heidegger did not explicitly say that authenticity is human excellence or the “highest good.” As political philosophy professor Mark Blitz articulates, Heidegger’s authenticity is the “true understanding of what human beings actually are.” From this perspective, authentic human beings are able to confront and grasp the responsibility they have for their own existence.

    Bound by justice

    Despite the current obsession with sincerity and authenticity, I believe it’s important to put these concepts in perspective: They might be added to a list of classical virtues, including courage, moderation, justice and prudence, rather than completely replacing them.

    There may be nothing intrinsically dangerous about pursuing authenticity. In many cases, it’s clear that people ought to be left to be who they want to be. But there are still a few obvious limits.

    At the very least, authenticity must be bound by justice. What if someone being their “authentic self” harms the environment or others? Some people are “sincere” or “authentic” while committing all kinds of harmful actions.

    While each of us may pursue authenticity, we should also remember that just and peaceful relations require the celebration of both difference and mutual respect.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • What does the appendix do? Biologists explain the complicated evolution of this inconvenient organ
    Photo credit: Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library via Getty ImagesMost people get acquainted with their appendix when it’s inflamed and about to rupture.
    ,

    What does the appendix do? Biologists explain the complicated evolution of this inconvenient organ

    It may be inconvenient, but the appendix is no evolutionary mistake.

    Most people know only two things about the appendix: You don’t need it – and if it bursts, you need surgery fast.

    That basic story traces back at least to Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who developed the theory of natural selection. In “The Descent of Man,” he described the appendix as a vestige: a leftover from plant-eating ancestors with larger digestive organs. For more than a century, that interpretation shaped both textbook and casual medical wisdom.

    But the evolutionary story of the appendix turns out to be much more complicated.

    Along with our colleague Helene M. Hartman, a student preparing for a career in health care, we combined our expertise in behavioral ecologybiology and history to review the scientific literature on the appendix, expecting a simple answer.

    Instead, we found an organ that evolution kept reinventing, more interesting than most people imagine.

    How did the appendix evolve?

    The appendix is a small pouch branching off the first section of the large intestine. Its shape and structure vary widely across species – a clue that evolution may have tinkered with it more than once.

    Some species, including certain primates such as humans and great apes, have a long, cylindrical appendix. In others, including several marsupials such as wombats and koalas, the appendix appears shorter or more funnel-shaped. Still others, including some rodents and rabbits, have differently proportioned or branching structures. This structural diversity suggests that evolution has modified the organ under different ecological conditions.

    Diagram of a segment of the small intestine with fingers of the appendix oriented in various degrees
    The appendix can be oriented in the body in multiple ways. Mikael Häggström, M.D./Wikimedia Commons

    That suspicion is supported by evolutionary analyses. Comparative studies show that an appendix-like structure evolved independently in at least three distinct lineages of mammals – marsupials, primates and glires, a group that includes rodents and rabbits. A broader evolutionary survey found that the appendix evolved separately at least 32 times across 361 mammalian species.

    When a trait evolves repeatedly and independently, biologists call this convergent evolution. Convergence does not mean a structure is indispensable. But it does suggest that, under certain environmental conditions, having that structure provided a consistent enough advantage for evolution to favor it again and again.

    In other words, the appendix is unlikely to be a useless evolutionary accident.

    What does the appendix do?

    The appendix supports the immune system. It contains gut-associated lymphoid tissue – immune cells embedded in the intestinal wall that help monitor microbial activity in the gut. In early life, this tissue exposes developing immune cells to intestinal microbes, helping the body learn to distinguish between harmless symbionts and harmful pathogens.

    The appendix is particularly rich in structures called lymphoid follicles during childhood and adolescence, when the immune system is still maturing. These immune components participate in mucosal immunity, which helps regulate microbial populations along the intestinal lining and other mucosal surfaces. Lymphoid follicles produce antibodies, such as immunoglobulin A, to neutralize pathogens.

    Researchers have also proposed that the appendix acts as a microbial refuge. Some have suggested that biofilms – thin, structured communities of bacteria – line the appendix. During severe gastrointestinal infections that flush much of the gut microbiome from the colon, beneficial bacteria sheltered within these biofilms may survive and help repopulate the intestine afterward. Those beneficial microbes assist with digestioncompete with pathogens and interact with the immune system in ways that reduce inflammation and promote recovery.

    These hypotheses motivated a question our team explored: If the appendix helps preserve microbial stability, could removing it subtly affect reproductive fitness?

    Older clinical concerns suggested that appendicitis or appendectomy might impair fertility by causing inflammation and scarring – known as tubal adhesions – in the fallopian tubes. Such scarring could physically obstruct the egg’s passage to the uterus. But several large studies have since found no decrease in fertility after appendectomy – in some cases, researchers found a small increase in pregnancy rates.

    The appendix appears to have multiple functions, including immune and microbial ones. Affecting fertility, however, does not seem to be one of them.

    Evolutionary importance and modern life

    While the appendix has an interesting past, with evolution continually reinventing it, its modern importance is modest at best. Darwin underestimated the organ’s history, but his instinct wasn’t far off in the medical present: Some parts of human biology mattered more in the environments people evolved in than in the lives they lead today.

    Early humans lived in environments with little sanitation and strong social contact – perfect conditions for outbreaks of pathogens that cause diarrhea. An appendix that quickly restored the microbiome after infection could significantly improve survival. But over the past century, clean water, improved sanitation and antibiotics have sharply reduced deaths from diarrheal diseases in high-income countries.

    As a result, the evolutionary pressures that once favored the appendix have largely disappeared. Meanwhile, the medical risks of keeping the appendix – most notably appendicitis – remain. Modern surgery typically treats an infected appendix by removing it. A structure that was once a global evolutionary advantage is now more of a medical liability.

    This mismatch between past adaptations and present environments illustrates a core principle in evolutionary medicine: Evolution optimizes for survival and reproduction in ancestral environments, not for health, comfort or longevity in modern ones.

    Evolution operates at the level of populations over generations, favoring traits that increase average reproductive success, even if those traits sometimes harm individuals. Medicine works the other way around – helping individuals thrive in the present world rather than survive the past one.

    The appendix is not an IKEA spare part included “just in case,” but neither is it essential today. Human biology has many traits that were once beneficial, now marginal – and understanding them allows medicine to make better modern decisions.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Pregnant mom asks for first-class seats. The internet couldn’t wait to deliver a reality check.
    Photo credit: CanvaA passenger sits in first class
    ,

    Pregnant mom asks for first-class seats. The internet couldn’t wait to deliver a reality check.

    A pregnant mom asked if front-row passengers should move so she could sit with her toddler on a flight. The internet wasn’t on her side.

    Flying with a young child isn’t always smooth sailing, especially when it comes to seating arrangements. A soon-to-be mother, known online as Deekaytwo, found herself turning to the internet for advice after wondering if it was fair to ask front-row passengers to swap seats so she could sit with her toddler. But the reaction she got online was anything but supportive.

    On Mumsnet, she shared the details of her travel situation: “We’ve got row 7A and C seats booked on our upcoming four-hour flight. The middle seat is blocked off, and we always use it for our nearly 2-year-old son after take-off and before landing.”

    airplane etiquette, flying with kids, seat swap debate, toddler travel, viral parenting story
    A young toddler plays with the back of an airplane seat. Photo credit: Canva

    She normally books front-row spots for ease, but those were unavailable this time. Now seated farther back, she worried about managing the flight with her young child. “According to the seat map, 1C and F are empty (typically reserved for gold members), and these usually open up just before the flight,” she explained.

    The thought of moving closer to the front lingered on her mind. To make it work, though, one of the passengers in the prime 1A or 1D seats would need to trade places so her family could sit together. “Am I being unreasonable to move us to the empty seats in the front row and hope/expect 1A or 1D to move so we can sit together? They’d still have their aisle/window and avoid sitting next to a baby, so I think it’s a win-win,” she wrote, pointing out she was five months pregnant.

    airplane etiquette, flying with kids, seat swap debate, toddler travel, viral parenting story
    Image of the seats in question. Photo credit: Mumsnet |u00a0Deekaytwo

    She even laid out two clear options for the forum to consider: “Stay in your current seats and let the fancy gold members keep the empty seat next to them!” or “It doesn’t make any difference to them and will make your journey more comfortable, probably everyone else’s too, as her son will have more room to be contained.” With more than 200 replies pouring in, the overwhelming response was that her expectations weren’t fair.

    The community didn’t hold back. “No, you cannot expect someone to move for your convenience. Book seats that work for you and assume that any that are already booked will remain occupied by someone else,” wrote user BreakfastAtMimis.

    airplane etiquette, flying with kids, seat swap debate, toddler travel, viral parenting story
    A mom sits with her toddler on an airplane. Photo credit: Canva

    Another, HoHoHoliday, chimed in, “Don’t set out to make someone else feel annoyed. Choose seats that are already available for you to sit next to each other. It’s only a four-hour flight, you should be able to manage your own child for that time.” ThanKyoualMee added, “Only book it if you’re prepared to travel in the seats you’ve booked! I wouldn’t book on the provision you need someone to swap with you, personally, I’d keep your current seats sat together.”

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Stories

Ideas

Making good choices when life gets messy – practical wisdom relies on human judgment, not rules

Society

Cashiers share the 10 craziest, most bizarre customer interactions they’ve ever had

Ideas

Professional speaker offers 5 polite yet effective ways to prevent people from interrupting you

Well-being

A pet‑friendly homeless shelter pilot reduced the rate of homelessness among the people it helped in California