You’ve probably heard about climate change. Global warming, carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions: the world gets warmer by the day. How much of the work put in against climate change do you actually believe in? The issue with making the world more sustainable is not a lack of visibility of the cause, nor the absence of a solution, but rather the failure to effectively implement many of these tactics. Many skeptics do not even believe that there is a temperature issue in the world since they have not measured it or actively noticed it every day despite overwhelming amounts of scientific data backing up its existence. The future of the world lies in the hands of the younger generation. However, how will anything be resolved if there is no unanimous acknowledgement of the dire consequences of tomorrow due to the lack of action today?

Currently, there are several potential outcomes for what the times ahead will hold. In an idealistic world, immediate and efficient action will be taken by the global population to avoid further temperature rises. In this reality, everyone becomes climate-sensitive and decisions are based on their sustainability impacts rather than their immediate economic gain. In the pessimistic scenario we are currently arriving at, there will be irreversible damages not only in relation to temperature but also greenhouse gas influences on the environment. Our children and their future children will inherit our tragic legacy and will be subject to their horrors on a daily basis with limited resources. Another option includes a partial solution such as carbon sequestration in localized areas for the rich who can afford the technology required for this, while the poor suffer. In these last two options, social justice will continue to be directly affected by financial inequality, for money will be used to protect those who pay for a better quality of living, their businesses and their lifestyle, promoting an utter lack of self-awareness and further expanding the gap in social disparity.
​
Simply put, the future is unknown, and the power is in the hands of those who have influence to change the view of the masses and shed light and perspective upon the consequences for our successors. Will we be remembered as a revolutionary generation who saved the world, or the generation who condemned it?

I think we can agree that we all love sleeping, right? And that dreaming is probably the best part of it? But, what does it mean to dream? And where exactly do we go? 
 
When we dream, we do not physically go anywhere, but our mind shifts activity during REM sleep, activating the thalamus, responsible for transmitting sensory signals, and visual cortex, while simultaneously disconnecting from external sensorial input. Now, our imagination does go places, running wild in our dreams, often creating seemingly illogical images. Whether those images are nonsense or not, humanity has been trying to understand and make sense of for thousands of years.  
 
In psychology and neuroscience, dreams are understood as a form of our brain processing information and creating conscious and internal experiences during sleep. According to the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, dreams are a form to act out desires we cannot fulfil in our waking life, and this is part of his theory of dreams, which said that they were "manifestations of unconscious workings of the brain." Opposing Freud, Carl Jung, another contemporary psychiatrist, affirmed dreams were actually "a direct expression of the mind itself", and thoughts were expressed with symbols and metaphors. This way of the brain communicating thoughts is seen as a "language" which is natural to our unconscious selves, but quite complex for us to normally understand, since it is so distinct from waking language. Jung also believed that this language and the symbols were integrated in all human consciousness, and he saw dreams as messages or visions, allowing the dreamer to anticipate future events. For Jung, dreams are an essential path for self discovery, given that they are an expression of the psyche, seeking integration between the conscious and unconscious states of mind. 
 
The concept of dreaming has fascinated humanity for millennia, and ancient civilisations had their own explanations to make sense of dreams too. In societies around the world, dreams are seen as "windows to the supernatural" and as messages from ancestors, spirits, or other divine sources. Many Eastern Indigenous cultures see dreams as much more than personal reflections, instead offering spiritual guidance and a glimpse to future events. In these cultures, people tend to share their dreams with elders or community counsellors for a collective dream interpretation and guidance.  
 
Japanese culture has a concept called the "Hatsuyume", which translates to "the first dream of the new year", in which dreaming of Mount Fuji, a hawk, or an eggplant is considered an extremely powerful symbol of protection, luck, and prosperity for the new year. Their superstitions also involve the "Baku", a mythical creature who consumes bad dreams, and people even invoke it to stop their nightmares. For the Japanese, dreams aren't just random thoughts of desire, but they carry deeper meanings and are a form of communication between our world and the spiritual world.  
 
There is not one single answer to what happens when we dream. We could combine answers from many different perspectives from different countries and in different time periods to try to answer that question, but in the end, it all depends on what you choose to believe in. Whether that is the psychoanalysts, Eastern Indigenous or Japanese culture, or who knows even a combination of many, I am certain you will make the most out of your dreams to try to comprehend them in some way. Some cultures have quite similar views on dreams, and it is quite curious. Maybe Carl Jung was right, after all, that there is a universal language in every human consciousness. 
 
As for me, whenever I dream, I always seek that yellow brick road. 
I hope your dreams take you somewhere as magical. Anyways, sweet dreams to us all!  ​

 

Sources: 

https://www.brescia.edu/2016/09/psychology-of-dreams/  
https://dreamstudies.org/carl-jung-dream-interpretation/  
https://www.dreamly-app.com/dreams-interpretation-cultural-differences-in-dream-interpretation-a-global-perspective/  
 https://bokksu.com/blogs/news/dreams-for-the-new-year-exploring-japan-s-hatsuyume-superstition#:~:text=positive%20dream%20experience.-,Dreams%20in%20Japanese%20Culture:%20Beyond%20Hatsuyume,influence%20their%20outlooks%20and%20decisions.  

Disney: the happiest place on Earth. With six parks, thirty-two resorts, a campground, over 200 dining locations, and hundreds of shows, rides and other attractions, Disney World certainly stands out. And it is certainly not all for nothing: the success of the park precedes the famed name. But why is this? What is the science behind the fairy dust that transformed the Magic Kingdom into the most visited theme park in the world?

Chances are that you have already been or will one day also find yourself immersed in the magical experiences Disney World has to offer - after all, over 50 million others do every year. On a daily basis, the park is estimated to revenue a monumental $36 million, and all these numbers seem to be constantly on the rise.

As Brazilians, we exercise a quite significant role in the park’s success. If you and two friends of yours are traveling to the US, there is a probability that at least one of the three are setting sights and plotting charters for the Mickey Mouse capital. In 2021 alone, we accounted for 20% of arrivals to Orlando: that was during the pandemic.

With success, popularity, and only growth in recent years, the Walt Disney Company is certainly doing something right. So, what is the recipe to the potion or spell that they have cast on the world, and more specifically, on Brazil?

In the early 1960’s, the sleepy, slow town of Orlando saw and speculated on a mystery entity purchasing millions of dollars’ worth of farmland, before Uncle Walt announced his magical plans for the area. A lot of Disney World’s early success can be attributed to the already prevalent renowned fame of the franchise, and of Disney’s first park, Disneyland, situated in LA. Due to this prior fame, restaurants and hotel chains raced for real estate in the former citrus-growing town even before the opening of the park. After only 2 years upon opening in 1971, more than 20 million visitors were welcomed in. The continued and increasing success of the park caused and benefited even more people, due to the opening of other parks and the reallocation of firms to the area. By constantly growing, renovating and expanding – to this day – Disney World continued relevant and interesting both to new and recurring customers.

A unique and immensely important strategy employed in the modern day is the constant maintenance of the ‘magic’. Whether it is the unending background music that never ceases to follow guests around at the parks, the Disney Cast Members with unending patience and smiles, the never-littered walkways, the apparent lack of misconduct carefully maintained by cameras recording everywhere in search of the smallest sign of an issue, or a mixture of all of these, the parks are perfected to the point of being truly almost magic. Popcorn smells are even diffused into the air from “Smellitzer” machines to enhance immersion. In these ways, Disney creates an experience impossible to equal in any other setting. Guests truly see Mickey’s homeland as ‘happier’ than other places.

Finally, Brazil has a unique bond with Uncle Walt originating from none other than the Second World War. With fascist ideas on the rise in Europe, Walt Disney was sent to Brazil in 1941 in support of the US government’s “Good Neighbor” policy. This initiative aimed to create positive relations with Latin America, thus promoting democracy and diminishing the influences of European governments. When in Brazil, Disney submerged himself into the local culture and took inspiration for characters like ‘Zé Carioca’ and Latin American cultural norms he integrated into future films, such as ‘Saludos Amigos’, made in 1942. Years later, with long records of Brazilian visits to the park, it is clear that Disney is reaping the success of these political campaigns.
​
In all, the world-famous Disney World gained its success for several reasons. From the anticipation of previous fans to the constant drive for innovation, Disney has maintained and grown substantially over the years. The magical feel enraptures frequent visitors and attracts potential new ones. International campaigns create positive connections with other cultures, attracting visitors from all over the world. Even if you don’t believe Disney is really the ‘happiest place on Earth’, marketing and strategy has certainly have earned it that title.

R. M Ballantyne's Coral Island (1858) tells the story of three young British boys stranded on an island. Through the awe-inspiring power of courage and resilience, they courageously fight pirates, and in the end, live an idyllic life in a tropical haven. After reading Ballantyne's "foolish" depiction of the circumstance, William Goulding published Lord of the Flies (1963). In Goulding's story, his characters soon see themselves falling into dispute and later, tribal warfare. In telling their stories in such different manners, Ballantyne and Goulding suggest opposite pictures in answering what would life be like without governance.


The state of nature is a theoretical state of mankind, one where an authoritarian institution who governs over the people is extinct and humans are left to fend for themselves. This article examines the possible outcomes of this theoretical situation, presenting various renowned philosophers' perspectives on the matter. All this will lead to a conclusion to understand more clearly what life means in a govern-less society.


The first perspective to be analysed is from Thomas Hobbes, where he mentions the "state of nature" several times in his most distinguished work, Leviathan. His take on the matter grows from his assumption that humans are driven by pursuit of self-interest. His mechanist view of human beings was derived from, interestingly enough, the conservation of motion. He believed, that like objects, humans kept constant motion unless a force was acted upon them. Becoming tired and desiring rest is simply to have a different motion act upon us. Hobbes argues that human beings seek ‘felicity’, the continual success in achieving the objects of desire. He explains in Leviathan (129-30) that the search of felicity ultimately would bring the stateless society into war. Hobbes supports this claim with several theories. He argues that human beings possess roughly the same level of strength, and so, any human being has the capacity to kill any other. “The weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others” (Leviathan 183). Moreover, he assumes that in the state of nature, goods are scarce, so that two people will ultimately desire to possess the same thing, leading to conflict, and eventually, war. His theory of the state of nature also implies that all must always be on their own guard, yet even if one possesses nothing, one must not be free from fear. Others may take oneself as a threat, and the individual easily falls victim to a pre-emptive strike. Therefore, Hobbes' ideal of the "natural state" is not a pretty one. It is one where life would ultimately become unbearable, falling to the hands of conflict and war.

John Locke's view on the "state of nature" was considerably distinct to Hobbes's view. He was keen to emphasise that Hobbes's identification of the state of nature to be the state of war as a mistake. He supposed that it would be generally possible to live an acceptable life in the absence of power. This argument rooted from Locke's belief that humans were neither innately good nor bad, but simply equal and born under the "law of nature". Not to be confused with the state of nature, the "law of nature" is the universal moral, discoverable through reasoning and human rationality. This meant that in a society with no authority, humans were to respect each other's fundamental rights to life. In the Second treatise, 12,275 Locke refers to the case of transgressions in the state of nature. "Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity as will suffice to make it an ill bargain for the offender and terrify others from similar acts". This meant that offenders who committed transgressions would cause society to repent the act and bring the villain to justice. However, this ideal would bring contradiction: The offender- who may well be an unreasonable person with like-minded friends might return armed, with forces to gain revenge. Considering this, Locke explained that people would disagree about the interpretation of the "law of nature", people would disagree whether an offence has taken place and people would disagree on proper punishment. This would, indifferently from Hobbes' standpoint, lead to war and chaos. In essence, human beings would tolerate living in a stateless world at start. However, as conflicts grow and indifferences start to become apparent, the world would fall again to destruction and war.

Another great mind to touch on the concept of a "state of nature" is Rousseau, who held a totally distinct perspective from Hobbes and Locke. His description of the natural state on his work Discourse on the origin of inequality gives insight into how he visualised this idealist society. Rousseau held a more holistic belief that human beings are motivated by pity and compassion, and so overestimated the likelihood of conflict in the natural state. From pity, he believed human beings had an "innate repugnance to see his kind suffer", this to him was "so natural even the beasts show signs of it". For Rousseau, it is a matter of regret that society has grown civilised. His treatise on education begins: "God makes all things good; man meddles with them, and they become evil." And on his discourse on the arts and sciences (1750), argues that art and sciences have done more to corrupt than to purify morality. Rousseau regarded that fact that to view and understand functionality of the state of nature, one mustn't view it with a civilised mind. In turn, this suggested the idea that as societies developed, so did languages and the opportunity for comparison. This gave rise to pride, shame and envy, as the state of nature began to transform itself, causes of dissention and quarrel break out. To Rousseau, this is the moment where war sparked, and society started to sponsor bloodshed and suffering.

Overall, it becomes evident that the question of life without the state cannot be answered in a single, definitive way. Hobbes depicts the state of nature as a vicious reality undermined by fear and war, whereas Locke’s perspective does consider a degree of stability, but ultimately forces the collapse of society. Rousseau envisions a state of purer existence, which, almost regretfully, became corrupted by progress of civilisation. These perspectives each highlight a different facet of human existence; our capacity for self-interest, reason and cooperation and the instinct for compassion. Nevertheless, understanding these perspectives together suggests a new discussion point. They indicate that the state of nature is less of a historical reality than a mirror reflecting each philosopher’s assumptions about mankind. The creation of the state as inevitable or necessary is based on unifying their visions, whether to protect individuals from violence, arbitrate disputes, or to prevent the corruption of human morality. More psychologically, the state of nature can be considered a thought experiment that requires us to think about human ethics, question ourselves about society’s functions and confront tension between freedom and security. Judging the state of nature from an impartial perspective is impossible, coming from humans inserted in a civil society: this is why our perception of the state of nature reveals how we perceive other humans and understand human connection. Overall, life without complete governance may or may not have been a reality, but it is undeniably a measure of our hopes and fears about society.
​


Bibliography
A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/A-Discourse-on-the-Sciences-and-the-Arts.


Bi, Johnathan. “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences by Rousseau | Notes & Summary.” Johnathan Bi, 14 June 2024, https://www.johnathanbi.com/p/discourse-on-the-arts-and-sciences.


Leviathan; or, the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. Encyclopædia Britannica, 28 Aug. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Leviathan-by-Hobbes.


State of Nature (Political Theory). Encyclopædia Britannica, 19 Aug. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-of-nature-political-theory.
“The False Allure of a ‘Natural State’ of Man.” Farnam Street, https://fs.blog/the-false-allure-of-a-natural-state-of-man/.


“The Political Philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.” University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, https://www.utc.edu/health-education-and-professional-studies/center-for-reflective-citizenship/2017-faculty-fellow-american-history-and-government-teaching-modules/thomas-hobbes-john-locke.


Two Treatises of Government. Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Two-Treatises-of-Government.

Have you ever felt a large pressure to finish an uninteresting book, for fear of judgement or disappointment with yourself? Have you ever found yourself with stacks of books piling up on your shelves, being avoided and collecting dust?
 
The truth is, that many books are better left unread. This is not judgement to the author or the quality of the book, but the sheer act of forcing yourself to finish it takes away the magic of reading. Though, reading should not be discouraged at all – it should be an adventure where you are enthralled, sucked into the plot, and where the finish comes naturally. It is one of the most powerful tools that we have at our disposal, often overlooked in favor of technology. George R. R. Martin once wrote, "A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one".
 
It seems that many blame schools for taking the joy out of reading; instead of being presented with novels for enjoyment, we are forced into nitpicking and analyzing it every step of the way. This makes a story turn into a jumble of words.
 
Books cannot be treated like chores – so instead of forcing yourself through that book, pick it up another time. And ultimately, art is subjective, so forcing yourself to read a "must-read" classic, just to suffer through it is completely unnecessary. Just because a book is praised by critics or assigned in school doesn't mean it's universally engaging.
 
And personally, leaving a book unread may sometimes be better than finding out the ending yourself. Leaving a book unread means that there are still infinite possibilities in that story; it sparks the joy to imagine a whole journey is left and absolves readers from the feeling of emptiness when the book is over.
 
This is why there should be no pressure in finishing a book: in the end, no one gets a prize for finishing something they hated, and you only get a few seconds of pride when bragging to your friends about that latest accomplishment. So, feel free to put down that book, but don't completely give up on reading itself.

​ 
The recent increase in tariffs for products imported by the US government has recently stirred up a lot of controversy, especially since other countries (aside from the US) are being affected due to the amount of products they export to the United States.
 
What are tariffs? Essentially, tariffs are taxes imposed on the value of imported goods. For example, when Brazil sells coffee beans to the US, a tax will be imposed on the value of the coffee beans being sold, such as 10%, and the value of that product will be 10% more expensive to import to the USA, causing an increase in prices of that product by roughly 10%. The aim behind these tariffs is to boost the American economy by ensuring that American products are bought more frequently in comparison to their foreign counterparts. When local products are favoured, jobs are protected and generated, theoretically boosting the economy. 
 
This concept was one of the leading arguments in the election campaign of the current US president, Donald Trump, who aimed to increase American production, instead of majorly importing foreign products. When this idea was proposed, there was a general feeling that the implications of such policies were not properly understood or disclosed.
 
The consequences of increasing such tariffs has led to many uncertainties in relation to global trade, including the pertinent questions: will the US actually impose such tariffs? At the start of this year, a set percentage of tariffs for each country was announced, yet very significant changes continue to be made since, including the high rates being temporarily reversed for 90 days (except for China which has an extraordinary tariff of 145%, with certain exemptions). Will other countries impose reciprocal tariffs? While China responded by imposing reciprocal tariffs, many other countries have vowed to do likewise though that simply has not been the case yet. Do these unilateral tariffs imposed by the US align with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements? One of the key objectives of the WTO is to reduce tariffs to incentivise globalisation. Will the tariffs actually lead to a growth of investment and jobs in the US? Investments are normally made based on long-term predictions for a benefitting return, whereas the current volatile tariff negotiations generate much uncertainty, "scaring off" many investors which could lead to the US taking a hit in their economy. In several countries, American products have been labelled and blacklisted to locally retaliate against the opposing tariffs, not agreed upon internationally.
 
Although the initial decision to reduce imports was 'popular' among the majority of Americans, the resulting consequences have led to an upheaval of discontent and major backlash, both among foreigners and locals. The implementation of this initially 'popular' ideal has proven to transform the opinion of the public into a now 'unpopular' concept.