What Makes a Good Online Video Ad: How Brands Grab Your Attention

There is no escaping them. Brand videos follow us from our Instagram feed to Netflix queue, from elevator screens to gas pump displays. What was once confined to commercial breaks has now infiltrated every corner of our daily lives, turning every moment into a potential marketing opportunity.

As of January 2026, 91 percent of businesses use marketing videos, and it is expected to account for more than 82 percent of all online traffic for the year. This isn’t just about slick visuals—there’s a deliberate strategic process designed to make us watch, react, and absorb the message. Behind every brand video lie the tools of audience psychology, A/B testing, and research on a person’s viewing habits. Good marketers find an individual’s emotional triggers, learn when they are likely to skip, and know precisely how long they have to hook them. This is ​​engineered persuasion packaged as content, and it’s reshaping how we think and what we buy.

Every brand video is the product of a sophisticated assembly line that begins months or years before viewers see it. Creative teams brainstorm concepts while data scientists analyze a person’s demographic profile. Copywriters craft scripts, and algorithms determine the optimal video length for our attention span. Directors shoot multiple versions, while tech teams build the delivery infrastructure that serves the content directly to our devices.

Yet the real work starts only after the viewer hits the “play” button. After that, every second, every pause, and every replay are tracked and fed back into an intricate data system that shapes the next campaign. Did viewers click through to the website? Viewers’ behavior around that call to action becomes data points influencing how the brand targets similar viewers. A video isn’t just content—it’s a collection tool that will make the next video even more persuasive.

The Big Idea: From Marketing Goal to Video Concept

The modern brand video is a result of creativity and surveillance, both focused on turning our attention into action.

Defining the purpose involves clarifying whether the primary goal is to raise awareness about an issue, educate a particular audience on a topic or skills, or persuade them to take a specific action or adopt a particular viewpoint. This foundational decision will shape every aspect of a communication strategy, from the tone and depth of the content to the metrics that will measure success. Each purpose requires different approaches to effectively reach and resonate with the target audience.

A classic example of a company following this method is Dollar Shave Club’s viral launch video from 2012, in which former CEO Michael Dubin stated the company’s goal with humorous, no-nonsense messaging. It inspired immediate sign-ups by making buying simple and fun, proving that a company’s mission and personality can drive action better than traditional ads. The video shows the product’s benefits without jargon, and the call to action is simple and memorable, encouraging viewers to visit the website and sign up immediately.

The next step is developing the original brief for a video project. A creative brief serves as the essential bridge between marketing objectives and executable content. It distills strategic goals, target-audience insights, and key messaging into a clear, actionable document that guides the script and production teams. By translating abstract marketing goals into concrete creative directions—including tone, visual style, messaging priorities, and success metrics—the brief ensures that all stakeholders are aligned and empowers creative teams to develop content that serves both artistic vision and business objectives.

Even the shortest videos should be built on a structured narrative, with setup, conflict, and resolution. Stories create emotional engagement, transforming passive viewers into invested audiences who remember the message and act on it. Storyboarding, a series of drawings reflecting the visual narrative, ensures that every shot serves the emotional progression. By meticulously planning each shot, from camera angles to character blocking, creators ensure that every visual moment contributes to the story’s expressive journey. Such detailed foresight is vital for maintaining a consistent tone and pacing, allowing the filmmakers to control the audience’s experience and evoke specific feelings at precise moments. Instead of leaving the emotional impact to chance, storyboards rehearse and control the entire narrative.

This detailed planning process facilitates clear communication among the production team. When every team member can see and understand the intent of each frame, collaboration becomes more efficient. This shared vision prevents costly detours during production and postproduction by locking the flow in early. Ultimately, storyboarding ensures the development of a seamless final product where the visuals are not just decorative but essential narrative tools.

The Script and the Science of Storytelling

The science of marketing video scripts begins with the critical first five seconds, where successful campaigns deploy visuals to break through the noise and capture fleeting attention spans. Once viewers are hooked, the most effective videos leverage humanity’s neurological preference for plot over data. Our brains are inherently wired for narrative: they process and retain information within the context of a story far more effectively than when being fed isolated data points. This phenomenon is known as the “narrative bias.”

Statistics appeal to our analytical minds, requiring conscious effort to interpret and retain; however, a story taps directly into our emotions. When we hear about a real-life struggle, the discovery of a solution, and the ultimate resolution, our brains light up in ways that they simply do not when presented with a bar graph or a spreadsheet.

This engaging format makes the given information more relatable, memorable, and persuasive, turning the listener into an active participant in the story more than a passive recipient of data. According to the University of Utah Health, “Humans are hard-wired for stories. They tug at our hearts, capture our imaginations, and help us filter the flood of information that rains down on us daily—including all those conflicting accounts about the latest wonder drug or new dangers linked to our favorite foods.”

In the video format, brand values subtly shape the dialogue and marketing message by filtering all creative decisions. A brand that values environmental protection, for example, will incorporate natural color palettes, sustainable product imagery, and a tone of voice that is calm and respectful of nature, avoiding fast-paced, high-consumption messaging. In contrast, a brand centered on innovation might use dynamic editing, futuristic graphics, and language that emphasizes cutting-edge technology and speed. These consistent, value-driven choices create a cohesive narrative that resonates with the target audience on an emotional level, building trust and recognition long before a product’s features are discussed.

Lights, Camera, and Algorithms: The Production Phase

Production is where creative vision meets technical precision, and every choice shapes how a story resonates with its audience. While filming basics—such as well-placed lighting, crisp sound, and intentional set design—establishes the tone and professionalism of the content, the rise of motion graphics, animation, and mixed-media storytelling adds new layers of dynamism and visual appeal. At the same time, accessibility features such as captions, alternate text, and thoughtful sound mixing are no longer optional—they’re essential for inclusivity and audience reach.

Yet beneath the artistry lies a constant balancing act: weighing cost against quality, deciding where to invest for maximum impact, and using technology to stretch production budgets without compromising the integrity of the final product. High-production-value videos demand significant investment in professional equipment, skilled crews, and postproduction, which can enhance brand credibility and engagement for complex narratives or brand awareness campaigns.

Conversely, lower-budget, “raw” content (like user-generated material or behind-the-scenes clips) can be produced quickly and cost-effectively, often leveraging its authenticity to elicit a relatable connection with audiences on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. The optimal approach is not to blindly pursue the highest quality, but to align the chosen production style with the intended purpose, ensuring a good return on investment by prioritizing clear storytelling and message effectiveness over unnecessary bells and whistles.

The Invisible Layer: Data and Targeting

The foundation of any successful branded video campaign rests on understanding your audience through data-driven research. By analyzing viewer demographics, interests, behavior patterns, and engagement history, brands can determine precisely who will see their content and tailor their messaging accordingly. This isn’t guesswork—it’s strategic positioning based on real insights. Once a business has identified its target audience, the next step is optimizing for discoverability through search engine optimization (SEO). Video titles, descriptions, and metadata should incorporate relevant keywords that the audience searches for to improve visibility across platforms. Search engines and platforms reward content with clear, keyword-rich information. A well-crafted title and description can be the difference between your video reaching thousands and having zero views. AIO, short for artificial intelligence optimization, focuses on getting content summarized and cited in AI Overviews and featured snippets, which often appear at the top of search results. In today’s digital-first marketing landscape, AIO is just as critical as SEO in content searchability and authority.

However, creating one video and distributing it everywhere is a recipe for mediocre performance. What works as a full-length YouTube tutorial will not work as a frenetic Instagram reel, just as a 15-second TikTok clip requires completely different pacing and energy than a LinkedIn thought leadership post. Astute brands create platform-specific clips that are tailored to each channel’s format, audience expectations, and algorithmic preferences.

Beyond organic reach, microtargeting and retargeting ads amplify reach by following interested viewers as they move across the internet. When someone watches a branded video or visits a website, pixel-based tracking enables the delivery of customized ads to that specific user on other platforms. The ability to do this with a target audience is the key to a successful marketing campaign. This strategic persistence keeps a brand top-of-mind and converts casual viewers into engaged customers, turning a single video touchpoint into a multi-platform journey.

Ads follow a person online through remarketing, which uses cookies to track their browsing activity and show them targeted ads on other websites. An external server, such as an advertising network, creates this third-party cookie. It stores a unique, anonymous ID that allows advertisers to track the individual’s activity, such as the pages viewed or the products added to a cart.

Advertisers then use this cookie data to identify the person’s browser across different sites within the same ad network. When they visit one of these other sites, the ad network can read the cookie, recognize the anonymous ID, and serve a targeted ad for the products or services previously viewed. This strategy is highly effective because it reengages users who have already shown interest, encouraging them to return and complete a purchase.

Distribution: Getting the Video in Front of You

Reaching your target audience with branded video requires a balanced approach that combines paid and organic channels. While organic reach provides cost-effective exposure, paid strategies like boosted posts, pre-roll ads, and sponsored placements guarantee visibility to larger, more targeted audiences when time is limited. Knowledgeable marketers combine both approaches, using organic channels as their base, and paid amplification to break through the noise and reach viewers who haven’t yet discovered them. To extend reach beyond their own channels, many brands partner with influencers and media outlets whose audiences align with their target market. These partnerships lend credibility and tap into existing communities, allowing branded content to feel more authentic and integrated rather than overtly promotional.

Distribution strategies, particularly those powered by real-time analytics, create a dynamic feedback loop that enables budget allocation to high-performing versions. By continuously monitoring performance metrics across different ad creatives, product placements, or marketing channels, businesses can instantly identify the variations that yield the highest engagement and conversion rates. This approach enables the automated or manual reallocation of resources from underperforming to successful elements. This real-time optimization process ensures that every dollar spent is maximized for impact, thereby refining overall performance and regularly maximizing return on investment.

Distribution success requires ongoing attention and optimization, as market dynamics, customer behavior, and competitive landscapes will continue to evolve after the initial deployment. Continuous monitoring of performance metrics, gathering customer feedback, and adapting strategies are critical to maintaining relevance and effectiveness. A/B testing different video edits, thumbnails, audience segments, and headlines throughout a campaign allows brands to identify what resonates with their audience.

After the Click: Measuring Success

Some marketers will say that the real work of video promotion happens after viewers hit the play button. To understand whether your video really worked, focus on the metrics that matter most. Click-through and completion rates reveal how many people watched and for how long, engagement metrics show where audiences clicked, commented, or shared, and conversions demonstrate the ultimate business impact. Heat maps and retention graphs offer deeper insights into audience behavior, pinpointing the exact moments when viewers drop off or lean in closer, demonstrating essential viewer activity.

Using this data to drive continuous improvement allows an individual or business to refine their messaging, pacing, and storytelling for the following video. When analytics directly shape creative decisions, institutional knowledge starts to develop.

The Human Factor: Why Some Videos Resonate

In today’s digital landscape, the human factor is finding the delicate balance between creative authenticity and data-driven strategy. While data can provide valuable insights into audience demographics and engagement metrics, it is the genuine content that builds trust. Brands are increasingly finding that in an era of overproduced content, a more natural, less conventional approach helps establish a strong digital profile and create a deeper connection with viewers.

Brand videos that go viral for the “right” reasons typically feature emotional storytelling, humor, social utility, or an awe-inspiring concept that encourages positive sharing and strengthens brand image. The right content helps brands build a strong digital presence, offering a natural and low-cost way to establish brand reputation and engage with users. The combination of a strong message and a data-informed distribution strategy is essential for a video to not only capture attention but also maintain it by fostering a lasting relationship with its audience.

Hitting Play, Looking Ahead

The next time you engage with a compelling brand story, you will have a new appreciation for the comprehensive effort that goes into it. It is this shift in perspective that allows the audience to appreciate the authentic effort and creative process involved in video production, beyond the final polished product. By offering a peek into the process, such as through behind-the-scenes footage, brands can humanize their operations and build a stronger, more transparent connection with consumers.

This approach helps viewers see the passion, care, and technical skill that goes into the work, transforming a potentially transactional viewing experience into one that inspires trust and genuine engagement. Reframing can change the audience’s focus from a simple sales pitch to an appreciation of the brand’s personality, values, and the real people who bring its story to life. For videos to truly go viral for the right reasons, they must move beyond shock value to create impact. This can be achieved when content feels genuine and resonates with an audience on a human level.

Video marketing is a strategic discipline far beyond simple production. It effectively blends creativity and data to achieve its goals. The success of any video lies in this powerful mix of art, psychology, and technology—a combination that both captures attention and drives the fast-paced digital world forward.

The Hidden Crisis: How America Fails to Protect Its Children

[Editor’s Note: This article is the first installment of “Does Your Community Care About Children?”, a four-part series by Colin Greer and Reynard Loki. The series examines overlapping crises facing vulnerable youth in America—and the opportunities to create systems of care, safety, and empowerment. At its heart lies a moral and civic question: Does your community care about children? Subsequent articles will explore the juvenile justice system, health, and poverty, as well as solutions through coordinated public-private investment in education, employment, and care. Together, these pieces connect structural failures with practical, value-driven strategies, offering a call to responsibility, compassion, and collective action for a more just future.]

There’s an invisible emergency in America: children toil in slaughterhouses, factories, and fields—night and day, unseen, unprotected, and endangered. A century ago, reforms such as compulsory schooling and restrictions on child labor marked a historic advance, shielding children from exploitation—a model still emulated worldwide. Yet today, austerity budgets, systemic neglect, and the ideology of “rugged individualism” are eroding those protections.

Child labor violations surged 31 percent between 2019 and 2024, according to the Department of Labor. Millions of children rely on federal programs for basic sustenance. In 2023, around 15.6 million children participated in SNAP, which provides monthly food benefits to low-income households. It is a paltry sum: In 2025, SNAP participants got an estimated $187 per month (approximately $6.16 per day) in benefits. Additionally, 41 percent of the recipients of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children were infants in 2024. This program protects the health of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under 5 years of age who are at nutritional risk. Some children are literally without homes, sleeping in shelters, cars, or on the streets, making the invisible emergency painfully visible.

Politicians and the media routinely proclaim their devotion to “saving children,” yet much of this is merely moral theater. Underfunded government agencies, weak oversight, and patchwork enforcement mean institutions designed to protect youth often enable their greatest suffering. Across these systems, a typical pattern emerges: children are valued less than institutions, profits, or political convenience.

We therefore ask a simple yet urgent question: Does your community care about children? In this context, “community” is not an abstraction—it is the network of towns, cities, neighborhoods, and local organizations whose daily decisions determine whether children are protected or placed at risk. Communities can influence, and sometimes counteract, national and state policies through local action, oversight, and innovation. Their choices can shape the conditions of childhood as much as any federal law.

Institutional Abuse and Neglect

From foster care to immigration detention, systems meant to protect children often do the opposite. Foster care, religious institutions, immigration, the justice system, and other establishments commodify and criminalize childhood, showing patterns of systemic harm rather than isolated failures.

Foster care: Nearly 350,000 children were in state custody in 2024, according to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, yet many face instability instead of safety. Thousands experience repeated moves, with more than a third undergoing three or more placements annually. High foster family turnover, caregiver burnout, and resource gaps force many into specialized group homes.

Placing children in unsafe or unstable environments resulted in more than 20,000 foster youth being reported missing in 2022, according to a federal report. The “systemic failure” of the foster care system is apparent, with one out of five of those who ran away likely becoming victims of sex trafficking, according to a Forbes article.

Youth aging out of care are particularly vulnerable to homelessness. Supporting youth through these critical transitions helps prevent them from falling through the cracks in the system.

Religious and athletic institutions: Decades of reporting reveal widespread sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and USA Gymnastics, with victims silenced and perpetrators shielded to protect reputations. The systems meant to protect and nurture children instead allow the perpetuation of these crimes. When an organization’s public image outweighs its responsibility, children suffer the most.

Immigration detention: Policies such as family separations, poor record-keeping, and overcrowded facilities create trauma for those detained, demonstrating how the system’s design perpetuates harm. U.S. Government Accountability Office and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reports document thousands of separations, with more than 2,500 children affected in 2018. A 2024 study conducted by Harvard FXB/Harvard Global Health, along with other organizations, revealed that of 165 children detained at Karnes County Family Residential Center between 2018 and 2020, who underwent prolonged detention—with a median duration of 43 days, often under unsafe and unsanitary conditions—experienced significant harm to their mental and physical health, including under-recognized chronic health conditions and trauma. Children are cataloged like property, their identities misplaced or erased.

Justice system inconsistencies: Criminal liability and statutory rape laws vary widely, demonstrating the arbitrary valuation of childhood. Several U.S. states, including Florida, Alaska, and Pennsylvania, have no minimum age for prosecuting children as adults—and in some documented cases, very young children have been sent to adult criminal court. Others fail to protect adolescents from sexual coercion.

Exposure to gun violence compounds these inequities: more than 2,500 children died from firearms in 2023, with tens of thousands injured. In fact, the 2024 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health report states that firearms were the leading cause of death among children and teens, with such deaths increasing by 106 percent since 2013. Each mass shooting produces the same cycle of outrage and legislative inaction, with lobbying often outweighing concern for young lives.

Poverty-driven child labor: Economic desperation forces children into slaughterhouses, factories, and fields. Violations surged in 2021 and 2022, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Children are living evidence of institutional neglect: when survival becomes labor, innocence becomes a luxury.

These are not isolated failures—they form a single moral pattern: children are treated as expendable whenever profit, politics, or convenience demand it. Each institution tells the same story in a different language, reflecting a society that celebrates innocence while systematically eroding it.

Child Labor in the Shadows

Beyond institutional neglect, economic exploitation drives children into hazardous labor. Globally, millions face preventable risks. In the U.S., industries are increasingly relying on minors for low-wage work, particularly as immigration restrictions tighten. Florida lawmakers proposed lowering the minimum working age to 14 in 2025. Meanwhile, six states—Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and West Virginia—enacted laws in 2024 weakening child labor protections.

Minors work in construction, meatpacking, agriculture, and domestic labor under grueling conditions, jeopardizing health, education, and long-term opportunity. Many work overnight or perform dangerous tasks, leaving them exhausted and vulnerable to accidents, exploitation, or trafficking. Homeless youth face amplified risk as the urgency to earn limits supervision and increases exposure to predators.

According to Human Rights Watch, child farmworkers such as the 15‑year-old pseudonymous ‘Ana Z.’ have described juggling school and working long hours harvesting on commercial farms. This burden often leaves them exhausted and undermines their education. Ana is not an exception; her circumstances reflect the gaps in protections for vulnerable youth nationwide.

Drivers of hidden child labor are complex: deregulation, weak enforcement, and corporate lobbying combine with family crises—poverty, unstable housing, or foster placements—pushing children into labor as a survival strategy. This cycle limits opportunities and perpetuates vulnerability.

Child labor in the shadows is a societal symptom: when children are treated as instruments of economic necessity rather than as humans with rights and potential, childhood becomes a commodity. Addressing these dangers requires more than enforcement; it demands a holistic approach integrating stable housing, educational support, and community-based oversight.

Paths to Protection

Preventing child harm requires sustained investment in prevention, stable placements, and systemic accountability. Community-based oversight—encompassing local review boards, youth councils, and family advocates—ensures that institutions cannot hide neglect or exploitation. Independent hotlines and watchdog agencies enable investigations to be conducted free from political interference.

Federal accountability and funding are essential. In 2023, Rebecca Jones Gaston, then-commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at HHS, testified to the U.S. Senate:

“Our focus on prevention includes increasing supports and services, such as funding mental health programs and substance use treatment and recovery, for children, parents, and families before they are in crisis. I hear routinely from youth and families that have experienced the child welfare system that many of their families could have stayed safely together if support for their housing, child care, mental health, substance use services, and/or other concrete needs had been met.”

International examples highlight effective prevention: In Norway, the Family House model integrates education, health care, and counseling to keep families stable. New Zealand’s Oranga Tamariki combines oversight by the Māori people with state care, striking a balance between accountability and cultural autonomy.

Funding prevention requires innovation. Blended public-private investment can finance mentorship programs, mental health care, nutrition, and family support. School-based health coverage ensures access to medical care. Educational work opportunities complement schooling. Mentorship networks offer guidance, dignity, and a sense of belonging.

Government policies should protect children at transitional moments—aging out of foster care at 18, and after college, when support systems vanish. Free state college access for foster youth and low-income students can help sustain development. Local experiments often scale nationally; the New Deal began in states before being implemented federally. Even when imperfect, programs need time to evolve and improve; adaptation, not abandonment, is the goal. Welfare reform is about improving systems, not eliminating them. The purpose is enduring: ensuring every child has the conditions for a full, safe, and dignified childhood.

From Awareness to Action

Awareness is meaningful only if it sparks action. Stability, safety, and care are fundamental rights, not privileges. The 31 percent increase in child labor violations represents thousands of children whose potential is compromised—a societal pattern in which profit, politics, and convenience outweigh human life.

Communities should invest in prevention, oversight, and housing stability to support long-term well-being and overall health. Institutions responsible for child welfare need to be transparent, enforceable, and empowered. Effective protection encompasses cultural understanding and community leadership, offering universal school health coverage, supportive educational and work opportunities, mentorship and community support, resistance to austerity cuts, and support for foster youth during transitions. Programs should be improved when lacking, not rejected.

From children toiling in fields and factories to those without a safe place to sleep, the failure to protect youth reflects a moral crisis. Awareness is only the first step. Confronting this invisible emergency demands a sustained, community-wide commitment if a secure childhood is to be protected as a right, not a privilege. The guiding question remains urgent: Does your community care about children?

Declining Reading Habits Threaten U.S. Democracy and Social Connection

The United States is in the grip of a reading recession—nearly half of Americans didn’t read a single book in 2023, and fewer than half read even one, according to data from YouGov and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Since the early 2000s, leisure reading has plunged by nearly 40 percent, a decline mirrored in falling reading scores and broader academic performance. What is at stake is not merely how people spend their free time, but a deeper erosion of the habits that sustain knowledge, empathy, and democratic life.

Decades of research show that the advantages of reading are both wide-ranging and profound. Regular engagement with books strengthens cognition, vocabulary, emotional intelligence, and empathy. These cognitive and social gains are closely linked to higher academic achievement, improved career prospects, greater economic stability, and increased civic engagement. Reading is one of the few activities that consistently bridges social divides—strengthening communities, encouraging civic participation, and sustaining democracy.

“The most important contribution of the invention of written language to the species is a democratic foundation for critical, inferential reasoning and reflective capacities,” writes cognitive neuroscientist and reading researcher Maryanne Wolf in her 2018 book Reader, Come Home. “If we in the 21st century are to preserve a vital collective conscience, we must ensure that all members of our society are able to read and think both deeply and well. … And we will fail as a society if we do not recognize and acknowledge the capacity for reflective reasoning in those who disagree with us.”

Literacy at Its Peak

Understanding the stakes of deep literacy today invites a look back at a time when reading was more than a pastime. More than a century ago, American writer and minister Gerald Stanley Lee captured reading’s transformative power in The Lost Art of Reading (1904): “The novel which gives itself to one to be breathed and lived… is the one which ‘gets a man somewhere’ most of all.”

Often described as America’s “golden age of reading,” the mid-20th century was a period when print media dominated daily life and literacy was widely cultivated across generations, supported by robust libraries, vibrant print journalism, and school curricula that treated reading as a central pillar of cultural participation.

According to NEA surveys, in the late 1940s, roughly 56–57 percent of adults read novels, short stories, poetry, or plays for pleasure. Daily newspaper readership was high, with about 65 percent of adults subscribing to or regularly reading newspapers, according to historical data from the Pew Research Center, while magazines such as Life, Time, and Reader’s Digest reached tens of millions of households.

Children and adolescents also read frequently outside of school, with 60–70 percent engaging in daily or near-daily reading, sustained by libraries, schools, and family practices, according to the National Literacy Trust. The period also saw the rise of shared reading experiences—fueled by organizations like the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Literary Guild—which broadened access to new titles, shaped national reading tastes, and helped make communal reading a mainstream cultural pastime.

The Data of Decline

By the early 2000s, national surveys were already signaling a decline in leisure reading in the United States. The NEA’s 2007 report “Reading at Risk: To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence” found that only 46.7 percent of adults read literature for pleasure, down from 54 percent a decade earlier.

Subsequent NEA surveys confirmed that the proportion of adults reading 12 or more books per year continued to fall. Gallup polls also reported a decline in the number of books read per year, from an average of 15.6 in 2016 to 12.6 in 2021. Time-use data from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences also shows that the share of Americans reading more than 20 minutes a day for personal interest dropped from 22.3 percent in 2003 to 14.6 percent in 2023.

Reading habits in the U.S. vary sharply by community type, income, and education. According to Pew (2021) and Library Research Service (2022), adults with higher education and income levels are far more likely to read regularly, while a 2011 Pew survey shows that rural residents lag behind urban and suburban peers, with fewer adults reporting reading for pleasure in the past year. Pew’s 2011 research found that 80 percent of urban and suburban adults read at least one book in the prior year, compared with 71 percent of rural adults, with significantly higher reading rates among college-educated and higher-income Americans than among less-educated and lower-income groups, revealing unequal cultural divides.

A landmark 2025 study published in iScience underscores the cultural shift reflected in declining reading habits. Tracking 236,270 individuals over two decades (2003–2023), the study examined both personal reading and reading with children and found that the share of U.S. adults reading for personal interest on an average day fell from roughly 28 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2023—a drop of about 12 percentage points.

“This is not just a small dip—it’s a sustained, steady decline of about 3 percent per year. It’s significant and it’s deeply concerning,” Jill Sonke, PhD, study co-author and director of research initiatives at the University of Florida Center for Arts in Medicine, said in a release about the study.

The research reveals a measurable, persistent, and accelerating trend in specific communities. In many of these households, children also have limited exposure to shared reading at home, further compounding early literacy gaps.

“Reading has always been one of the more accessible ways to support well-being,” said Daisy Fancourt, Ph.D., study co-author and professor of psychology and epidemiology at University College London. “To see this kind of decline is concerning because the research is clear: Reading is a vital health-enhancing behavior for every group within society, with benefits across the life-course.”

Lifelong Reading, Lifelong Benefits

Reading is a powerful tool for brain health, supporting cognitive function and emotional well-being throughout life. A 2009 study by the University of Sussex found that just six minutes of reading a day can reduce stress levels by up to 68 percent—more than listening to music or taking a walk—as well as lowering heart rate, reducing muscle tension, and improving sleep.

A 2020 study in International Psychogeriatrics found that consistent reading habits among older adults are associated with slower cognitive decline—independent of education and other risk factors. What’s more, a 2016 Social Science & Medicine study reported that book readers had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of death than non-readers.

As early as the mid-1940s, librarians and clinicians were documenting the use of reading as a therapeutic tool—a practice that came to be known as “bibliotherapy.” Case histories published in Library Journal, along with reports from psychiatric hospitals and educational settings, document how carefully chosen books could aid emotional healing, foster insight, and support rehabilitation.

Bibliotherapy is now practiced worldwide in public, academic, and hospital settings and is increasingly used by therapists as a mental-health support tool. As a 2025 BBC Future article notes, “Carefully selected books can provide emotional relief and help readers navigate difficult feelings, offering insights that might be hard to access otherwise.” An influential 2016 study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that engaging with literary fiction activates brain networks involved in social cognition, allowing readers to simulate other people’s thoughts and feelings, even when controlling for age, education, and IQ. “When readers engage with literary fiction, they actively simulate the experiences of others, enabling the use of social‑cognitive capacities in a way that non‑fiction simply does not,” the study notes. “If we become a nation of non-critical, superficial, shallow-skimming non-readers, we have no chance to build the base of empathy, critical analysis, and rigorous knowledge that is imperative for our next generation,” Reader, Come Home author Wolf said in an interview with the UCLA School of Education & Information.

The benefits begin early: A 2024 Psychological Medicine study of over 10,000 American children found that those who read early scored higher on cognitive tests and fared better emotionally as they entered adolescence. Yet many kids are missing out: A 2025 HarperCollins UK study reports that only 41 percent of kids ages 0–4 are read to regularly—a drop from 64 percent in 2012. The researchers note that Gen Z parents—many of whom grew up in the digital age—are more likely to see reading as academic rather than enjoyable. Nearly 30 percent say reading is “more a subject to learn than a fun thing to do,” compared with 21 percent of Gen X parents—and kids are following their lead: According to the study, 29 percent of children ages 5–13 now say reading feels like schoolwork, up from 25 percent in 2012.

“It’s very concerning that many children are growing up without a happy reading culture at home,” said Alison David, Consumer Insight Director at Farshore and HarperCollins Children’s Books, in a release about the study. “Children who are read to daily are almost three times as likely to choose to read independently compared to children who are only read to weekly at home.”

Early disparities in reading habits often persist into adulthood: American high school seniors are reading at lower levels than they have in over two decades, according to the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report, which reveals a continuing long-term decline.

Low-Literacy, High Stakes

The stakes extend far beyond the classroom. Lesley Muldoon, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board, warns, “These students are taking their next steps in life with fewer skills and less knowledge in core academics than their predecessors a decade ago, and this is happening at a time when rapid advancements in technology and society demand more of future workers and citizens, not less.”

Analysis from the 2023 Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) reveals a “dwindling middle” in skill distribution, with more Americans clustering at the bottom levels of proficiency than in previous assessments. According to the study, the share of adults performing at the lowest literacy level rose from 19 percent in 2017 to 28 percent in 2023, and fewer than half of adults now reach the highest proficiency levels.

Low adult literacy is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $2.2 trillion annually, factoring in lost productivity, higher healthcare spending, and other social costs, according to a 2021 Adult Literacy and Learning Impact Network study, which reports that more than half of American adults read at Level 2 or below, and nearly 30 percent struggle with the most basic texts, limiting job opportunities and career growth.

The Rise of Digital Media

Such widespread literacy challenges don’t exist in a vacuum—they collide with a rapidly changing media environment that makes deep reading even harder to sustain. In today’s “attention economy,” digital platforms feast on Americans’ media appetite, serving a constant menu of bite-sized, algorithm-curated news and “infotainment” via phones, tablets, and streaming feeds. As more Americans turn to gig work and experience growing time scarcity, sustained reading is increasingly squeezed out by the low-effort pull of online streaming—according to Pew Research, roughly 83 percent of U.S. adults turn to online streaming, revealing how both shrinking leisure time and intense competition for attention are driving the decline.

Pew Research shows that 86 percent of Americans now get news digitally, while only 7 percent rely on print newspapers. According to Pew’s Social Media and News fact sheet, about 53–54 percent of U.S. adults report getting news from social platforms at least sometimes. Facebook (38 percent) and YouTube (35 percent) remain the leading news sources, followed by Instagram (20 percent), TikTok (17 percent), and X/Twitter (12 percent). Streaming has also become deeply embedded in American culture, with 83 percent of adults reporting use of streaming services.

Reading is no longer just a solitary pastime—it faces increased competition from online communities, social media, and other digital distractions. The mid-20th-century “middlebrow” culture, where book clubs, newspapers, and mass-market fiction created shared cultural touchstones, has largely faded. As Thomas Jefferson warned, “An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will,” and yet being “well-read” no longer carries the social prestige it once did; literacy and engagement with books are less visible markers of cultural participation, reducing the societal incentives to read deeply or widely. This dramatic migration to digital formats is not merely a change in medium—it is transforming the cognitive and social contexts in which information is interpreted. The combination of fast-paced digital formats, viral misinformation, and partisan echo chambers amplifies skepticism, making it harder for audiences to distinguish reliable reporting from opinion or disinformation.

A 2025 Gallup survey reveals that Americans’ confidence in mass media has plunged to a historic low—just 28 percent now say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in newspapers, TV, and radio to report news “fully, accurately and fairly.” The survey notes that when it began polling in the 1970s, trust ranged from 68 percent to 72 percent.

Screen-Inferiority Effect

The move from print to screens represents a fundamental change in how Americans encounter reading content, sharpening concerns about how people, especially students, process what they read—and where they read it.

A growing body of research suggests that reading on screens can undermine comprehension, attention, and deep engagement compared with print. This phenomenon, dubbed the “screen inferiority effect,” appears to stem from three key issues: cognitive overload (digital reading encourages multitasking and scrolling), a lack of spatial landmarks (print’s physical layout helps our brains remember where information is on the page), and the tendency to skim when reading online.

Young readers may be the hardest hit. Research suggests that children who grow up with paper books not only score better on reading assessments but may also achieve more academically—those with access to physical books reportedly complete an average of three more years of education. MRI studies show that these children develop stronger neural connections in brain regions responsible for language and self-control—connections that screen-heavy kids may lack.

Leisure reading on digital platforms has also been linked to lower comprehension among children and young adults, according to a 2023 Scholastica review, and other long-term studies suggest that print reading fosters stronger retention and deeper cognitive processing, as reported by The Guardian.

A 2025 study published in Frontiers of Psychology examined how different modes of reading—paper, digital, audio, and video—affect cognition and mental health of college students, finding that participants who read literary works in paper (or listened in audio formats) showed the greatest improvements, demonstrating better cognitive function and lower levels of anxiety and depression than those in digital, video, or control groups.

“Reading has declined because it’s facing growing competition from other forms of media consumption that may offer students more immediate gratification,” Martin West, professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the deputy director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School, noted in a 2025 “Harvard Thinking” podcast.

“I think we have a lot of evidence to support the extent to which technology can be a distractor when students are engaged in learning processes. And that ability to distract, to compete for attention, could also lead to diminished appetite for persistence in reading on their own,” said West.

The Literacy Divide

The challenge isn’t just attention—it’s the unraveling of support systems that sustain reading in schools, including rising book prices, unequal access, and weakened infrastructure, all of which are eroding opportunities for leisure reading and amplifying the economic pressures behind the decline. According to the Center for American Progress 2024 report “Investing in School Libraries and Librarians to Improve Literacy Outcomes,” more than 50 years of research show that students with access to well‑resourced school libraries with certified librarians consistently perform better academically and score higher on standardized assessments.

However, America’s public schools have quietly but steadily shed thousands of certified school librarians. A national analysis from the School Librarian Investigation—Divergence & Evolution (SLIDE) Project found that librarian positions dropped by about 20 percent between 2009 and 2019, even as many districts increased spending on other staff roles.

The losses were not evenly shared: High-poverty districts, schools serving mostly Black, Hispanic, or multilingual students, and small rural systems were far more likely to lose their certified librarians entirely. Charter schools were hit hardest: Roughly 90 percent reported having no librarians at all. The strain on school libraries reflects a broader crisis in the U.S. public library system, where staffing shortages, budget pressures, and reduced services are also concentrated in high-poverty, high-minority, and rural districts. A study published as an EdWorkingPaper finds that between 2008 and 2019, 766 public library outlets closed, disproportionately affecting rural areas; the closures were associated with declines in nearby students’ reading and math test scores.

Tests Over Texts

Access to books shapes not only what students can read but also how reading is taught. A growing emphasis on standardized testing has increasingly displaced literature, narrowing curricula to measurable skills and focusing on short texts and assessment at the expense of sustained reading or literary exploration. “A critical part of becoming a literate person is to examine and explore a full text. This should be a major part of every student’s education,” writes Peter Greene in “The Atomization of Literature: How Standardized Testing Is Killing Reading Instruction,” published in Forbes.

“Instead of teaching students how to read a whole book, we teach them how to take a standardized test,” Greene argues, adding, “As long as high-stakes testing pushes a quick, superficial solo reaction to a context-free excerpt, schools will deprioritize teaching reading and literacy as a reflective, collaborative, thoughtful deep dive into a complete work. And that will be a loss for students.”

Rose Horowitch, in her 2024 Atlantic article “The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books,” cites a 2024 EducationWeek Research Center survey of about 300 third-to-eighth-grade educators, noting that only 17 percent said they primarily teach whole texts; an additional 49 percent combine whole texts with anthologies and excerpts. Horowitch emphasizes that nearly a quarter of respondents said that books are no longer the center of their curricula. “Whether through atrophy or apathy, a generation of students is reading fewer books,” writes Horowitch. “Students see reading books as akin to listening to vinyl records—something that a small subculture may still enjoy, but that’s mostly a relic of an earlier time.”

Counter-Currents: Signs of Hope

From smartphones to e-readers, new technology is beginning to erode the long-standing resilience of the paper book. About 30 percent of U.S. adults now read books digitally, according to the Pew Research Center. Audiobooks are experiencing even faster adoption: The Audio Publishers Association 2025 Consumer Survey found 51 percent of Americans aged 18 and older—an estimated 134 million people—have listened to an audiobook.

That momentum is matched—and in some ways surpassed—by the popularity of podcasts. Podcasting is booming in the U.S., reaching 210 million Americans and drawing 115 million weekly listeners as of 2025, according to Edison Research. Podcasting now accounts for roughly 11 percent of daily audio consumption, and over 1.1 million English-language podcast episodes have been identified via public RSS feeds.

One bright spot is that independent bookstores are experiencing a resurgence, often supported by local communities and curated events, and subscription book boxes make discovering new titles easier than ever. Social media, particularly TikTok’s “BookTok,” has become a powerful driver of reading among Gen Z, propelling interest in specific genres and bestselling titles. The growth of book‑subscription services suggests a counter-current supporting reading: the global market, valued at about $1.34 billion in 2024, is projected to nearly double by 2033, as more consumers seek curated deliveries to keep reading habits alive.

The Path Ahead

To reverse the reading recession in the United States, experts say efforts need to reach across schools, families, and communities. “It will take a comprehensive ecosystem to support our students at every touchpoint,” says Dr. Paige Pullen, chief academic officer and literacy principal at the University of Florida’s Lastinger Center for Learning, in a release about the innovative New Worlds Reading Initiative.

Created by the Florida Legislature in 2021, the program illustrates how multi-level, coordinated approaches can address declining reading rates. Offering modular training for educators from birth through 12th grade, incorporating evidence-based strategies, practical classroom applications, and ongoing mentorship, the initiative aims to support teachers in applying literacy practices in the classroom while promoting collaboration across schools and communities, helping ensure students receive consistent guidance in developing reading skills at each stage of learning.

Across the United States, several states are implementing ambitious literacy initiatives to address persistent reading gaps. Iowa, Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Alaska have all received multi-million-dollar federal Comprehensive Literacy State Development (CLSD) grants to support evidence-based reading instruction, high-dose tutoring, and professional development for educators, with a focus on children in high-need communities. A range of literacy nonprofits and school programs are also stepping in to bolster reading skills and access to books, particularly for children in under-resourced communities.

The NEA offers a range of solutions to promote early reading at home—from in-clinic programs to digital tools and grassroots book-sharing initiatives. Nonprofits Reading Is Fundamental (RIF) and the Children’s Literacy Initiative are expanding access to books, supporting teachers, and strengthening reading instruction where schools need it most.

Raising a Reader partners with schools, community centers, and libraries to provide curated, multicultural book collections and training for parents. Reach Out and Read integrates literacy into pediatric care, giving books to young children during well-child visits and coaching caregivers on reading aloud together.
Worldreader—a global nonprofit that promotes family reading through its free digital app, BookSmart—is helping parents read to their children daily, even in low-resource settings.

Grants, policy incentives, and strategic partnerships are also critical to ensuring these efforts are sustainable and equitable. A policy brief from the Center for American Progress, “Investing in School Libraries and Librarians to Improve Literacy Outcomes,” argues that investing in certified school librarians, up-to-date collections, and teacher collaboration is a powerful lever to boost student literacy and long-term reading engagement.

Emerging technologies, such as augmented reality (AR technology) storybooks (Metabook) and interactive voice-assisted reading (TaleMate), combine engagement with learning, demonstrating how digital and print strategies can work together to foster reading habits, improve literacy outcomes, and transform libraries into immersive learning hubs.

Programs like Open eBooks—a collaboration among major publishers, libraries, and nonprofits—provide free access to thousands of eBooks for children in under-resourced communities. Penguin Random House’s Living Stories app merges read-aloud sessions with interactive lights and sounds to engage young readers. Library software providers like BiblioCommons integrate e-books into public library catalogs. At the same time, platforms such as Reading Plus and collaborations like Reading Partners + AT&T deliver personalized, digital literacy instruction to students at school and home.

Reversing America’s reading decline requires more than urging kids to pick up a book—it demands rebuilding a culture that champions literacy at every stage of life. This means addressing funding and staffing crises in school and public libraries, rethinking teaching practices that undervalue deep reading, and supporting parents in fostering early literacy. It also calls on policymakers, educators, and communities to invest in the long-term infrastructure that literacy requires.

The stakes are high: without intervention, the next generation risks inheriting a world of perpetual scrolling, fragmented attention, and shallow engagement with ideas. But with coordinated action, we can envision a future where books, both print and digital, reclaim their role as catalysts for curiosity, empathy, and civic understanding. Reading can once again be a shared cultural experience, a personal joy, and a cornerstone of an informed, connected society.

The Genetic Secrets That Help Some Animals Defy Aging

Aging brings about a range of changes—often unwelcome—to our bodies: sagging skin, graying or thinning hair, and a decline in muscle strength and vitality. But aging also affects us on the inside, altering proteins and other biomolecules in ways that increase our risk of developing chronic diseases—such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes —and raise the likelihood of death. “You live, and by living, you produce negative consequences like molecular damage. This damage accumulates over time,” says Vadim Gladyshev, who researches aging at Harvard Medical School. “In essence, this is aging.” Yet some species (including some humans) age more slowly and live long, healthy lifespans. Why is that?

Why Mammals Have Different Maximal Lifespans

Mammals, for instance, differ dramatically in their maximal lifespans—from the tiny forest shrew, which lives only one or two years, to the bowhead whale, capable of living for more than 200 years. Humans are also notable among primates for their comparatively extended lifespans, living twice as long as chimpanzees, our closest relatives. Larger species tend to have longer lifespans than smaller species. At an average of 100 tons, the bowhead whale is about 100 times heavier than the forest shrew. The African elephant, the largest land mammal, weighs more than six tons and lives up to 65 years.

Larger species’ longevity is usually due to their ability to resist stress and predators. However, size isn’t the only factor, nor is it always definitive. Bowhead whales are enormous—the second-largest living mammal—but their 200-year lifespan is at least double what you would expect given their size. Farther down on the scale, Brandt’s bat, which weighs 5 to 20 grams (0.17–0.70 ounces), can live for more than 40 years, and so can the naked mole rat, which weighs a mere 34 grams (1.9 ounces). Because birds and bats can evade predators by flying, they live longer than their small size would predict.

Researchers have compared 26 mammalian species with diverse maximal lifespans. These ranged from two years (shrews) to 40+ years (naked mole rats). The thousands of genes identified were related to the species’ maximal lifespans. The genes were either positively or negatively correlated with longevity. The disparities in species longevity raise two questions: First, from an evolutionary viewpoint, why do some species have long lives while others don’t? And second, what genetic and metabolic idiosyncrasies allow the long-lived species to live as long as they do?

The Energy Theory of Longevity

Scientists believe that the answer to the first question lies in the energy a species expends to prevent or repair cellular damage. “You want to invest enough that the body doesn’t fall apart too quickly, but you don’t want to over-invest,” says Tom Kirkwood, a biogerontologist at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. “You want a body that has a good chance of remaining in sound condition for as long as you have a decent statistical probability to survive.” Researchers found that short-lived species tend to have a high number of genes involved in energy metabolism. In contrast, long-lived species tend to have fewer genes that are similarly involved, indicating that those with lower metabolic rates conserve energy over the long term.

According to this theory, a house mouse isn’t going to spend much energy on maintenance because its chances of survival are slim. A predator, such as a cat, is likely to catch the mouse quickly. As a result, the mouse ages rapidly. By contrast, long-lived mole rats spend most of their lives in underground burrows, putting them beyond the reach of most predators; this allows them to allocate their energy to survival, enabling them to live for decades. Whales and elephants are less vulnerable to predators (except for humans, of course) and are likely to survive long enough to benefit from better-maintained cellular machinery.

Genetic Tricks to Delay Aging

But the question that researchers most urgently want to answer is the second one: How do long-lived species manage to delay aging? Researchers have made some progress in deriving an answer. Long-lived species, they’ve found, accumulate molecular damage more slowly than shorter-lived ones do. Comparative genomic analyses identify genes and biochemical pathways associated with complex traits and processes. What are the particular signaling and metabolic networks that might play a role in regulating age-related conditions? Why have specific organisms benefited from using novel evolutionary strategies and genetic determinants of aging in different environments?

Scientists have identified several aging-related genes in mice, fruit flies, and worms. But they still don’t know whether these genes controlled lifespan variations during the evolution of species. Some tantalizing clues, however, have emerged. For instance, the naked mole-rat evolved unique mutations in a gene that confer cancer resistance. DNA repair genes in humans, elephants, and whales, such as those found in the bowhead, help reduce cancer incidence in these species. These genes also appear to be related to longevity.

The risk of cancer poses a significant challenge to increasing the lifespan of mammals. For instance, two of the longest-lived rodent species—the naked mole-rat and the blind mole-rat—have discovered a genetic trick that utilizes interferon secretion to induce cell death, thereby enabling them to combat cancer. They have a gene called TP53, which appears to help prevent cancer by suppressing tumor growth. Indeed, elephants, like blind mole-rats, benefit from similar genes, and humans, too, have a protective equivalent.

Mammals didn’t start living longer only in the last few centuries. On the contrary, evolution has produced long-lived mammals multiple times over millions of years. Among the oldest surviving mammals are bats, tapirs, monkeys, rhinos, horses, bowhead whales, and apes. Humans also enjoy a high ranking. As of 2025, Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122, is recognized as the longest-lived human; however, some scientists speculate that humans may live up to 150 years or more. Each evolutionary experiment has involved trying out different genetic strategies, such as enhancing homeostasis (biological balance) throughout life or preventing cancer.

The “engine” of evolution is called the pluripotency network. That is, all embryonic or pluripotent stem cells can differentiate into various cell types in different parts of the body, such as the lungs, liver, or pancreas. “We discovered that evolution activated the pluripotency network to achieve a longer lifespan,” says Vera Gorbunova, a biologist at the University of Rochester. The pluripotency network enables the reprogramming of somatic cells—non-reproductive cells—into embryonic cells. Embryonic cells can more readily rejuvenate and regenerate by repackaging DNA, which becomes disorganized as we age.

The pluripotency network is “an important finding for understanding how longevity evolves,” says Andrei Seluanov, a researcher at the University of Rochester. “Furthermore, it can pave the way for new antiaging interventions that activate the key positive lifespan genes. We would expect that successful antiaging interventions would include increasing the expression of positive lifespan genes and decreasing the expression of negative lifespan genes.”

Establishing a link between gene expression and longevity requires more than simply identifying the genes involved or the actions they perform in the body. Scientists need to determine when these genes are activated—turned on—and at what times on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis. Circadian networks also play a role in controlling the lifespans of genes, specifically whether a particular gene’s expression is limited to a specific time of day, which may inhibit the action of that gene in terms of how long, on average, a species can live.

Researchers can determine when specific genes are activated by attaching chemical tags, known as methyl groups, to sites that regulate gene activity. Geneticist Steve Horvath of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and his colleagues have found that by assessing the status of a set of almost 800 methylation sites scattered around the genome, they can reliably estimate an individual’s age relative to the maximal lifespan of its species. This “epigenetic clock” holds for all 192 mammalian species Horvath’s team has examined so far. He surmises that by reviewing these methylation sites, he will be able to predict a species’ lifespan regardless of any particular individual’s age. This is an advantage in studying species previously unknown to science.

For longer-lived mammals, this means their genes remain active for a longer period. Put another way, their epigenetic marks degrade more slowly, causing their biological clocks to tick more slowly. For example, the longest-lived bats often have the slowest rate of change in methylations, whereas those of shorter-lived species change more quickly.

The Longest-Lived Species

Elephants

Since large size in mammals generally corresponds to a slow metabolic rate, it is hardly surprising that elephants have long lifespans. African elephants are estimated to live up to about 74 years, whereas Asian elephants can live up to about 60 years. Elephants in both parts of the world also possess extra copies of the tumor-suppressor gene TP53, which may help them deal with DNA damage by clearing affected cells, allowing them to live longer.

Marmots

At the other end of the scale are yellow-bellied marmots, which weigh between 7 and 15 pounds and can live for 15 to 18 years. Natives of the United States and Canada, they spend almost half their lives hibernating, entering their burrows each year during September or October and remaining in them until May.

In the other months, marmots, which resemble ground squirrels, prepare for hibernation by fattening themselves on flowers, grasses, insects, and bird eggs. It is their long hibernation period that explains why they can live as long as they do. During hibernation, marmots alternate between periods of metabolic suppression, which last approximately one to two weeks, and shorter periods of increased metabolism, typically lasting less than a day. During metabolic suppression, the animals’ breathing slows, and their body temperatures drop dramatically, allowing them to use a minuscule amount of energy—about a gram per day. By saving energy, marmots can survive prolonged periods without food. Hibernation basically stalls the aging process.

A study of marmots in the wild shows that an antiaging effect kicks in when marmots are two years old, based on the date at which juveniles first emerge from their natal burrows. Researchers at UCLA believe that these hibernation-related adaptations—diminished food consumption, low body temperature, and reduced metabolism—are the reason why marmots outlive other animals of a similar body weight. The UCLA researchers speculate that the marmot may offer a model adaptable to humans, for example, to improve organ preservation for transplantation or to enable long-term space missions.

Bowhead whales

This 100-ton cetacean can live up to 200 years. It is one of the heaviest animals on the planet. Researchers studying its genome have discovered that this species possesses unique genes that aid in DNA repair and resistance to mutations that can lead to cancer. The bowhead whale’s cells were both efficient and accurate at repairing double-strand breaks in DNA—that is, restoring broken DNA so that it’s as good as new. And their cells do this more often than the cells of other mammals. It is thought that the whale’s relatively sluggish metabolism may also account for its longevity. These whales, of which there are now approximately 25,000, inhabit Arctic and subarctic waters. Research conducted in 2025 found that the bowhead whales may live as long as they do because they can repair detrimental mutations in their DNA, thanks to a protein (CIRBP). These mutations, if unchecked, can increase the risk of cancer and age-related diseases over time. Whales have 100 times as much CIRBP as humans do, which may explain why they live beyond the normal human lifespan. The researchers believe that their repair mechanism is enhanced by the frigid Arctic waters in which these whales spend their lives.

Bats

“If we lived as long as bats, adjusted for size, we could live 240 years,” said Gerald Wilkinson, a biology professor at the University of Maryland and the lead author of a 2019 paper about bat longevity. In one case, a small bat, approximately one-third the size of a mouse, was recaptured, still healthy, 41 years after it was initially banded. Bats live longer than mammals of similar size that live on land. There are some 1,400 different types of bats. Not surprisingly, they have different food preferences—flying insects, fruits and nectar, fish and small crustaceans such as scorpions, and blood, which is the sustenance of vampire bats.

Some species can fly at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour, making them the fastest mammals on earth. But what has particularly caught researchers’ attention is their tendency to live in large colonies, where they’re exposed to deadly viruses, including rabies, Ebola, Marburg, Nipah, and Hendra, as well as other pathogens. (Bats are believed to have originated viruses such as COVID-19, and two related strains—SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), all of which can cause suffering and death in humans.)

Why do bats live so long—30 to 40 years is typical—when they are practically swimming in all these viruses? Bats, it turns out, have a remarkably robust response to viruses. Although scientists have inoculated them with lethal viruses, they exhibit minimal responses, showing no overt symptoms and developing only subclinical infections. Genomic sequences show that bats have an extraordinary innate immunity to viruses and inflammation. This immunity may contribute to their long lives.

Cockatoos

In captivity, a cockatoo, a type of parrot, can generally live for 60 to 70 years. The oldest confirmed bird in captivity was a pink cockatoo named Cookie, who lived to 83. Another famous cockatoo in captivity, named Cocky Bennett, was said to have lived to the age of 119, though this is unconfirmed. In the wild, a sulfur-crested cockatoo typically lives for 40 years, but other cockatoo species—there are 21—may live longer. To explain why cockatoos and other parrot species live as long as they do, whether in captivity or in the wild, researchers at the Max Planck Institute examined two hypotheses.

One question was whether the larger brain size of birds, such as cockatoos, is responsible for their longer lifespans. Because in the wild, more intelligent birds can solve problems more effectively, they tend to live longer. The second was whether their relatively large brains simply take longer to grow, naturally resulting in longer lifespans. The results supported the first hypothesis. Parrots with relatively large brains possessed cognitive capabilities that enabled them to solve problems in the wild that could otherwise have led to their demise. Their intelligence enabled them to live longer lives. The scientists were surprised to find that other factors, such as diet or the longer developmental time required to develop larger brains, had no impact on their longer average lifespans.

Albatrosses

Most albatrosses live to age 50. The oldest wild albatross on record is Wisdom, a female Laysan albatross, estimated to be approximately 72 or 73 years old as of 2024. Researchers first tagged her in 1956, and she was estimated to have hatched around 1951. She has racked up three million miles in her travels around the world since 1956.

One theory to explain the longevity of albatrosses—applicable to other migratory birds as well—focuses on their power of flight. Annual migrations can take these birds thousands of miles, requiring them to remember geographic locations, maintain strong muscles, and keep their eyes and ears in a state of readiness. That means that they can more easily evade predators and find shelter. “They’ve had to be so highly engineered to succeed at flight,” says Steven Austad, who studies aging at the University of Birmingham. “That kind of physiological integrity has allowed them to stay healthy much longer than another animal.” Reproductive success may also account for longevity. In albatrosses and other long-lived seabirds, reproductive success actually increases with age. Wisdom, for example, has hatched 30 to 36 chicks with her mate (albatrosses are monogamous); that is, they have produced at least one chick per year since 2006.

Macaws

Like albatrosses, macaws (which belong to the parrot family) mate for life. They can survive for up to 60 years in the wild and 100 years in captivity. The oldest macaw in captivity lived to be 112 years old. Researchers have found that, as in other parrots, brain size plays a significant role in their longevity. “Large-brained birds might spend more time socially learning foraging techniques that have been around for multiple generations,” says Simeon Smeele, a doctoral student at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior. “This increased learning period could potentially also explain the longer life spans, as it takes more time but also makes the foraging repertoire more adaptive.”

Tuataras

These lizard-like animals are the largest reptiles in New Zealand, and have one of the slowest growth rates of all reptiles, which may help to explain why they can live up to 100 years. They are sometimes referred to as “living fossils,” since they have no extant relatives. Although they share some traits with snakes, they diverged from them 250 million years ago, making them older than the oldest dinosaurs. They are close to impervious to many infectious diseases and demonstrate peak physical activity at shockingly low temperatures for a reptile. Tuataras have the lowest known optimal body temperature of any reptile, ranging from 16 to 21 degrees Celsius (or 60 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit).

Scientists interested in understanding why tuataras live so long have undertaken the first-ever deciphering, or sequencing, of their genetic code. They have found that the animal’s genome is enormous, about five gigabytes, or some five billion DNA base pairs in length, which is about two-thirds bigger than humans’ and is “unusually large” for a reptile. Many of these genes encode selenoproteins, which help protect against aging and cellular deterioration. Tuataras also appear to have an unusually high number of TRP genes, which encode proteins involved in temperature sensitivity and body temperature regulation. This may be why they can tolerate such low temperatures.

Giant tortoises

All tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. Turtles can live only in water, whereas tortoises can live on land, including deserts, grasslands, and wet tropical forests. And although turtles have an average lifespan of 40 years, the Galápagos tortoise—the largest species—can live up to 177 years in captivity, possibly longer. One giant tortoise, called Jonathan, is believed to have been born in 1832 and is alive and well in 2025. The Galápagos tortoise’s name is derived from the Spanish galápago, meaning “tortoise.” Some of the observations that led Charles Darwin to develop his theory of evolution were based on tortoises in the Galápagos Islands during the second voyage of the Beagle in 1835.

Giant tortoises can weigh up to 1,000 pounds. Like other large species, their metabolisms are set at an extremely low level, and their life stages tend to be comparably extended, as it takes them up to 30 years to reach sexual maturity (about twice the time of a human). Animals with lower heart rates tend to live longer than those with higher heart rates. Giant tortoises have a heart rate of approximately 10 beats per minute. Humans have heart rates between 60 and 100 beats per minute, while the pygmy shrew, whose heart rate is 1,200 beats per minute (the fastest rate of any animal), survives for only a few months.

For longevity, several other factors work in the giant tortoises’ favor, including genetic traits related to DNA repair, immune response, and cancer suppression. One study found that tortoises have extra copies of genes (called “duplications”) that may protect against the ravages of aging, including cancer. Giant tortoises can destroy precancerous cells through a process called apoptosis. Cancer is more prevalent as species age, and a defense against cancer may help tortoises to become centenarians more often. In addition, because these larger species have more cells, they have a greater number of cells that are vulnerable to cancer.

Cave salamanders

These blind amphibians can regularly live to be 100 years old. They don’t appear to be resilient; they are pale, eyeless, and about a foot long. As their name suggests, they spend their entire lives in caves (in Southern Europe), where, of course, there is little need for vision. This creature, like most other long-lived species, has an unusually sluggish metabolism. It takes 15 years to mature, mate, and lay its eggs (every 12 years or so). Cave salamanders barely move except to seek food, not that they need much food. They have virtually no predators, and their ability to conserve energy also helps explain their remarkable longevity. For comparison, the next longest-lived amphibian, the Japanese giant salamander, only rarely lives to 50 years.

Glass sponges

These sponges, believed to be the oldest animals on Earth, also have one of the planet’s longest lifespans—more than 10,000 years, possibly 15,000 years. One glass sponge observed by researchers in the Ross Sea, a bay of Antarctica, is thought to be the oldest living animal on the planet. Glass sponges are composed of large, complex, glass-like skeletons made of silica; they spend their lives attached to hard surfaces, filtering water through thousands of holes to consume bacteria and plankton. The filtration is also fast—80,000 liters per second. They also serve as habitats for small crustaceans. The relative simplicity of their structure may explain why these sponges live so long. Glass sponges are among the organisms often classified as biologically immortal, as their cells can regenerate infinitely, thereby preventing biological aging. However, “immortal” is a bit hyperbolic, as these animals are still vulnerable to predation, disease, and environmental changes.

Giant barrel sponge

Another sea sponge, the barrel sponge, is the largest species of any sponge and is found in the Caribbean Sea. It may be more than 2,300 years old, earning its nickname the “redwood of the reef” due to its large size and long lifespan. It typically grows in Caribbean coral reefs at depths up to 390 feet (120 meters). It is usually large, firm, and cone-shaped, although some varieties are low and squat. However, why it lives so long remains a mystery. One clue may come from research conducted in 2025, which proposed that the environment may be a significant factor in its longevity. The sponges, the researchers say, may be resilient to the effects of sediment by producing mucous. The mucous, in turn, removes the sediment from the surface of these ‘redwoods of the reef,’ which may allow the sponges to resist environmental conditions that would inhibit their ability to thrive and survive for millennia.

Black coral

Corals are among the longest-living animals on Earth. Some coral species can live up to 5,000 years, but black corals in the genus Leiopathes are known to be the longest-living of all corals. It takes considerable time to create an entire coral reef; therefore, coral formations grow an average of only 1 to 1.5 inches per year. Corals are constructed out of colonies, which in turn are formed by individual polyps, some of which may have lifespans of a few hundred years, whereas some polyps may only live for a couple of years. Corals, which depend on sunlight and salt to grow, are generally found in clear, shallow saltwater. They require warm temperatures—no more than 70 degrees Fahrenheit—and are susceptible to pollution.

Ocean quahog

This mollusk can live up to 500 years and is found in the North Atlantic from Newfoundland to North Carolina. Like so many long-lived species, it grows very slowly, reaching reproductive maturity only at the age of six. Biologists have yet to figure out why quahogs live so long. However, they suspect that its relatively stable antioxidant levels help to prevent the cell damage responsible for most signs of aging in animals.

Rougheye rockfish

These deepwater fish are found in the North Pacific. They can live for over 200 years. Many other rockfish can only live up to 11 years. Rougheye rockfish, however, generally start breeding at age 25, and they produce more and stronger young as they get older. Because rockfish comprise more than 100 species, with lifespans ranging from 11 to over 200 years, researchers have utilized them to study the phenomenon of longevity. They have found that genes that normally regulate steroid hormones, which affect how long an organism takes to reach sexual maturity, may explain why this particular species has a longer lifespan than its relatives.

The flavonoid metabolic pathway (controlled by these genes) may be among the biological pathways that influence longevity, and this applies not only to rougheye rockfish but also to humans. “Nature presented us with an experimental design in the form of rockfish, and we wanted to see if we could pull data from it,” says Matthew Harris, associate professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. “It’s incredibly impressive and valuable that this actually worked. It shows how comparative genomics can detect signals from millions of years of evolution to help us understand the networks of genes that interact to regulate complex phenomena such as longevity.”

Koi

These large goldfish, native to Japan and prized especially for their beauty, typically live 15 to 30 years, although some have been known to live up to 200 years. However, they are indulged by humans, which explains why they can live so long. Even in captivity, other fish seldom live 40 years or longer. The koi that reach the century mark and beyond may also owe their longevity to breeding, as Japanese breeders take great care to maintain the gene pool of these fish, keeping the most valuable and longest-lived in Japan and exporting others that don’t meet their exalted standards.

Greenland shark

Also known as the gurry or grey shark, this fish is typically found in the waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic. But because these sharks live at great depths (an average of 2,568 feet), they haven’t been well studied. What is known about them is that they can live to very advanced ages—250 to 500 years, the longest known lifespan among vertebrates. They’re extremely big (they measure between 8 and 23 feet and weigh 3,000 pounds or more) and reach sexual maturity only at 150 years.

Their pups are born alive after a protracted gestation period that ranges from 8 to 18 years. Researchers believe that their slow metabolism is a key factor in their long lifespan. These sharks move through the depths at speeds of less than 10,000 feet per hour (about 1.8 miles per hour). Compare that rate to that of the great white sharks, which can travel up to 35 miles an hour. On the other hand, no other sharks can withstand the extreme Arctic cold year-round. Greenland sharks may also benefit from the protection afforded by the methylated compounds in their muscles. These compounds play a role in gene regulation.

Jellyfish

A standout among jellyfish, Turritopsis dohrnii possesses a unique trait that makes it immortal—or as close to immortal as a living organism can be. This species has the ability to revert to its juvenile polyp stage after reaching sexual maturity. These jellyfish begin their lives as free-swimming larvae that eventually develop into colonies (collections of cloned polyps). In the event of environmental stress, a threat to its well-being, sickness, or age, the jellyfish can revert to its original polyp state and form or join another colony.

Turriopsis dohrnii can pull off this trick through a process called transdifferentiation, which transforms old cells into new cell types. In theory, this process can go on indefinitely. Immortality, though, is seldom reached because of predation or disease in the earliest medusa stage, cutting these creatures off before they can revert. Nonetheless, their capacity to revert—and, in theory, live indefinitely—has attracted the interest of researchers studying aging, which may ultimately lead to the development of regenerative therapies or age-delaying drugs in humans.

The Resurrected Worm

A humble worm may have won the long-life competition. The discovery of an apparently long-dead worm in the Siberian permafrost in 2023 has prompted scientists to reassess the longevity of an organism. After being frozen for approximately 46,000 years in the permafrost, the worm Panagrolaimus kolymaensis—a previously unreported nematode species in the scientific literature—survived and remained alive. It just took a bit of thawing. The worm appears to have benefited from a process known as cryptobiosis, which slows an organism’s metabolism. In this biological strategy, life seems to stop under icy conditions. This process has been observed in other creatures, such as tardigrades and particular species of brine shrimp. Because no significant metabolic activity occurs in a frozen state, animals can survive even lethal conditions until they are restored to an environment in which they can resume growth and reproduction.

The worm extracted from the permafrost appears to have spent most of its life in a state of suspended animation. Scientists believe that these long-lived creatures possess special molecules that stabilize cells, keeping them intact even under extreme dryness or temperature fluctuations. Similar molecules have been found in other organisms that are known to survive dehydration and freezing. A 2023 study of tardigrades, also known as water bears, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration highlighted their ability to withstand harsh conditions in space. This suggests that these tiny beings may have developed defense systems against extreme radiation and severe temperature fluctuations.

“No one had thought that this process could last millennia, 40,000 years, or even longer. It is simply amazing that life can begin again after so long, in the state between life and death,” said Dr. Phillip Schiffer, a group leader in the Institute of Zoology at the University of Cologne.

Scientists hope that, if they can isolate the genes in these nematodes that protect cells against freezing and radiation, they can store human tissue in cold storage and minimize damage from severe cold or dehydration. Although the worm unearthed from the permafrost has died, this type of worm generally lives for only one or two months. Its offspring remain alive in controlled conditions.

Oaks

The oldest individual oak tree in the United States is the Pechanga Great Oak Tree in Temecula, California, estimated to be around 2,000 years old. The Jurupa Oak in Riverside, California, which is estimated to be 13,000 years old, isn’t one tree; it’s a colony of trees with the same DNA; that is, it has cloned itself. The cloned trees form only after wildfires, when the burned branches of the original trees sprout new shoots.

Baobabs

Found in the savannas of 32 African countries and playing a role in many remedies, the baobab is one of the world’s oldest trees. It predates both human beings and the splitting of continents 200 million years ago. The tree is a succulent, absorbing water during the rainy season and storing it in its wide, cylindrical trunk during the dry season. It produces a nutrient-dense fruit that earns it its nickname, the Tree of Life. An iconic tree with an average height of nearly 100 feet and a crown of distinctively gnarled branches, it can live up to 5,000 years. “Baobabs are particular trees, with unique architectures, remarkable regeneration properties and high cultural and historic value,” says Adrian Patrut, a chemist at Babes-Bolyai University in Romania, noting that “they play an important role in carbon sequestration and create a distinct microenvironment.”

Bristlecone pine

The longest-lived tree is thought to be over 4,789 years old; it is a Great Basin bristlecone pine named Methuselah, located high in the White Mountains of California. Although other trees in the White Mountains and Aspen are older, they are clones of the same species, not individual trees like the bristlecone pine. This tree’s survival is due to its ability to thrive in environments where most other plants can’t. It can spread its roots far and wide in search of nutrients. Apparently, it is also relatively impervious to intense stress. This tree grows slowly because of the freezing temperatures, dry soil, and high winds in the area. Yet it can grow in both good and bad weather. Because it has a tough exterior, it is resistant to insect and pest infestations. Even as it ages and most of its bark dies, enough of the bark remains that the tree never dies entirely.

Redwoods

Individual redwoods can live up to a thousand years, but the species is believed to have lived on the planet for millions of years. There are three types of redwoods—coastal redwoods, giant sequoias, and dawn redwoods—and most are found in California. Some giant sequoias are estimated to be 3,000 years old. Coastal redwoods—some rising as high as skyscrapers 30 stories tall—are the tallest trees known. Because of their thick bark (up to 12 inches), the redwoods can withstand forest fires. Their canopies are vital to their health; by capturing water (often in the form of fog droplets), they effectively create their own rain.

Yews

Yews are among the longest-living trees in the world, capable of surviving for millennia. Some species, like the Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) of the Pacific Northwest, live for over 2,000 years, slowly growing into dense, evergreen forms. In Europe, yews have inspired awe for centuries because of their extraordinary age. The Llangernyw Yew in Wales is estimated to be between 4,000 and 5,000 years old, making it one of the oldest living organisms on the planet. Their ability to endure through centuries of environmental change, human activity, and disease highlights yews as a remarkable example of nature’s resilience and longevity.

The world’s oldest tree (possibly)

The Alerce Milenario, also known as Gran Abuelo (Great Grandfather), in Chile, is believed to have begun growing in 1630 BC and may be the world’s oldest tree. Only 28 percent of the tree is alive, primarily in its roots. Its surface is mainly covered with lichens and mosses. Scientists used a bore to penetrate the tree without harming it and found that it had 5,000 rings, which they used to determine its age, concluding that it was 100 years older than any of its rivals.

The Secret to Longevity Remains a Mystery

“The genetics of longevity are notoriously confusing,” says Dr. Mary Armanios, an oncologist and geneticist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Confusing is right. Inflammation, which is associated with diseases of aging, is one factor. So is genetics. “Please study me,” pleaded Maria Branyas Morera, a Spanish citizen who, up until her death in 2024 at the age of 117, was the world’s oldest living person. Scientists have obliged, examining her blood, saliva, urine, and stool. They determined that her cells “seemed younger than her age.”

She lived a healthy life, walking a mile a day until she was over 100, and abstaining from drinking and smoking. And she consumed three yogurts a day. However, a healthy lifestyle wasn’t the only factor that contributed to her longevity. She was also found to have genetic variants reported to protect against common risk factors such as high cholesterol levels, dementia, heart disease, and cancer. In addition, she had a microbiome with an abundance of a type of beneficial bacteria, to which those yogurts might have contributed.

But nearly everyone who lives to a ripe old age—there’s a growing number of supercentenarians (those who live to 110 or more)—has a different explanation as to why they lived as long as they have while retaining all their marbles. The truth is that no one knows the secret to longevity, whether in humans, Greenland sharks, Galápagos tortoises, or bristlecone pines. Good genes are helpful. A healthy lifestyle, curiosity, and strong social relationships also play a significant role in contributing to why some individuals live to a great age. And yogurt can’t hurt, either.

Writing and Critical Thinking: How Words Shape the Mind

What kind of writer are you? Do you write from the heart, the mind, or the gut? Some writers produce words intuitively, without conscious thought, while others edit meticulously as they create. Writing is not only an act of expression; it is a process that engages cognitive functions at multiple stages—from conception to final draft. In today’s world, with projected growth in publishing, including independent authors and diverse digital content, it seems that many people are—or aspire to be—writers. But writing is more than producing text: it is a method for clarifying thought. Writing and critical thinking are closely connected, as words play a crucial role in shaping reasoning, reflection, and understanding.

Critical thinking operates across education, politics, business, and everyday life. It’s one of the most sought-after qualities in job candidates, yet it can be developed at any age or stage of life. We use it constantly—when planning our day, discussing current events, writing an email, or weighing the credibility of something we read online. At the heart of critical thinking lies the argument—not an argument as in a quarrel, but a reasoned statement that supports an idea or claim. Take a simple example: “One should never run out of clean clothes, or risk wearing dirty ones.” On its face, it sounds sensible. But a critical thinker pauses to ask questions. Is it always true? Could new clothes be bought instead? What if the person works outdoors or is traveling? Does “dirty” mean unsanitary or merely worn once? Exploring such questions exposes the hidden assumptions in a statement—and this act of inquiry exercises the core skills of analysis, evaluation, and synthesis.

This skill is strengthened through writing. Writing forces precise expression, reveals gaps in logic, and provides space to question assumptions. Revising a draft mirrors the process of refining thought, enabling ideas to evolve and improve before sharing them with others. Every writer has a unique approach. The medium used to draft—whether handwriting, typing, or dictation—can engage the brain in different ways, with research suggesting that handwriting may offer unique cognitive benefits compared with typing. Some writers are intuitive, while others are learned and practiced; some flow, some gush, some stop and start, and some are constantly self-editing. Regardless of the process, writing activates parts of the brain and exercises thinking processes.

Confessional writing, brain dumps, and creative exploration are early forms of engaging thought, but writing becomes truly transformative when combined with critical thinking. Words move from internal inspiration to external clarity, enabling reflection, analysis, and revision. Writing helps distinguish subjective and objective perspectives. For instance, geese crossing a road may be called “stupid” (subjective) while also being vulnerable to cars (objective). Investigating why geese behave as they do—considering biology, environment, and context—exercises reasoning and empathy simultaneously. Similarly, the example of dirty clothes reveals practical and evaluative considerations, illustrating how writing clarifies thought.

Writing encompasses many forms, each of which strengthens critical thinking in different ways. Journaling promotes self-reflection and discovery, revealing insights and encouraging structured thought. Essay writing strengthens logical argumentation. Creative writing develops perspective-taking and problem-solving. Note-taking and summarizing improve comprehension and synthesis. Public writing, such as blogging, introduces accountability and dialogue with differing viewpoints, sharpening clarity and reasoning. How-to writing requires precision, sequencing, and anticipation of the reader’s needs. Reporting objectively refines critical thinking by analyzing and carefully considering the selection of facts. Digital tools, including mind-mapping software and writing platforms, can aid in organizing thought, while over-editing, autocorrect, or excessive reliance on AI may reduce engagement with the thinking process.

Writing can feel overwhelming, even producing stage-fright-like anxiety. Common challenges include lack of confidence, confusion about tasks, missing foundational skills, perfectionism, and premature self-editing. Yet, these obstacles can be addressed through critical thinking, which enables ideas to be evaluated, refined, and organized before being expressed. The writing process itself—brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing—mirrors cognitive processes. Revision exercises the mind on macro levels (structuring big ideas), mezzo levels (organizing paragraphs), and micro levels (proofreading and smoothing language). Critical thinking ensures that expression is coherent, persuasive, and meaningful.

Audience, vehicle, and voice also shape writing and thinking. Every piece of writing targets a specific audience, whether it is a teacher, a colleague, or the public. The chosen medium—whether a poem, essay, report, email, or campaign—has an impact on cognitive engagement. Voice, the writer’s unique expression, influences how ideas are interpreted and understood. Recognizing these factors deepens reasoning and enhances communication. Consistent practice develops mastery over content and process. Structured prompts, freewriting sessions, journaling, and reflective revision not only expand skills but also enhance mindset, self-awareness, and critical engagement with ideas.

Writing activates critical thinking through reflection, analysis, and iterative development. For example, the Harvard University course “Structure and Function of Argument” frames arguments as statements in support of ideas. Writing enables the breakdown of arguments into components, evaluation, and conclusion. Revising a draft mirrors this cognitive evaluation. Instructors and students alike benefit when writing is used as a tool to analyze and improve reasoning.

Writing also allows the integration of head, heart, and gut. It is not simply a brain dump or emotional purge. The act of choosing words, sequencing ideas, and revising thoughts requires conscious decisions, providing space for critical thinking and the development of coherent reasoning. As the late English author Sir Terry Pratchett observed, “No one’s policing their own minds more than an author. You spend a lot of time in your own head analyzing what you think about things, and a philosophy comes.” Writing becomes a marriage between internal reflection and external communication, fostering clarity and precision.

Journaling encourages discovery and problem-solving, turning intuitive or emotional expression into structured insight. Writing instructions, even for simple tasks, strengthens precision and logical sequencing. Objective reporting refines critical thinking by analyzing and carefully considering the selection of facts. Each type of writing exercises reasoning differently, but consistently contributes to sharper thought processes. As exemplary leaders of critical thinking, scientists and entrepreneurs apply these skills to validate outcomes, recognize when ideas need reevaluation, and refine their approaches accordingly.

Ultimately, writing facilitates the evaluation of both subjective and objective dimensions. Understanding the difference between what one feels and what one thinks enables clearer communication and greater empathy toward others. For instance, in the case of dirty clothes, the subjective view may be one of disgust at disorganization, while the objective perspective might recognize a lack of executive functioning skills. The geese example illustrates the same principle: Reasoning through perspective and context strengthens both understanding and analytical thinking.

Writing challenges, including stage fright, perfectionism, and premature editing, can be seen as opportunities for developing critical thinking skills. Engaging deliberately with these challenges—through iterative drafts, feedback, and reflection—enhances reasoning and problem-solving skills. The writing process mirrors cognitive refinement: Brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing cultivate clarity, organization, and coherence at multiple levels.

Writing is a lifelong cognitive practice. It clarifies ideas, challenges assumptions, strengthens reasoning, and improves communication. Whether journaling, crafting essays, composing creative works, or reporting objectively, deliberate writing engages critical thinking and refines understanding. As George Orwell noted, “Good writing is like a windowpane”—it reveals ideas clearly, allowing both writer and reader to perceive the world with sharper insight. Writing is not merely an act of expression; it is a structured practice for cultivating thought. To think more clearly, reflect deeply, and reason more effectively, the path is simple: Write consistently, revise thoughtfully, and allow words to illuminate the mind.

How Technology Shapes How We Move, Speak, and Think

The influential computer scientist Mark Weiser once wrote that “a good tool is an invisible tool. By invisible, I mean that the tool does not intrude on your consciousness; you focus on the task, not the tool.” By this definition, many of our digital tools seem to have succeeded completely; they liberate our bodies by becoming invisible to users. By closing the gap between our bodies and our virtual selves, touchless technologies such as gesture control, voice recognition, and eye tracking aspire to channel our pure, natural expressions.

Such an interface has long been the holy grail for designers. From the Wii motion console to Leap Motion to the gadgets we all now carry in our pockets, these devices aim to erase the boundary between our bodies and our information. These devices promise a future in which our tools are so intuitive, they vanish. Now, it seems that future has arrived.

Though invisible to our conscious minds, our tools indelibly shape us. Technologies are not simply objects but architectures that organize our bodies in space and time, and give form to what I call the digital body: how we feel, move, and become through and alongside digital technologies. And the digital body is not an abstraction—it is us, becoming, again and again, in the technologies we build and the worlds we inhabit.

Living in the era of smartphones and AI, it’s easy to think that we’re in uncharted waters without a map. Our tools have become so frictionless, so invisible, that we forget their historical origins. Long before algorithms and touchscreens, technologies like writing, musical instruments, and even roads reshaped human life. These transformative tools and systems heralded profound changes in how we interact with one another, how we engage with the world around us, and ultimately, how we live.

As increasingly personalized technologies permeate our lives, such urgent questions arise as: How did we get here? What kinds of bodies do our technologies assume, require, or erase? What’s at stake when flesh becomes interface? And how might we redesign our path?

Our interactions with technology are dramas of skin, bone, information, rhythm, and power. Technologies refine, track, translate, and choreograph our behaviors; in doing so, they introduce new ways and languages of being, feeling, moving, and knowing.

Hands

As organs that extend consciousness into our surroundings, hands might be understood as the original interface—or as cartoonist Lynda Barry calls them, “the original digital device”—between human and world.

Paleoanthropologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers have stressed the evolutionary symbiosis of hand and mind. The hand mediates the most complex interactions of the human brain and the realm of technology. At the same time, our gestures have been shaped by an ongoing dialogue with our tools and our environments. As our earliest principal technology for information storage and retrieval, writing embodies this interplay.

Hands are smart. Hands are curious. Hands learn. Hands know things.

Despite the crucial role hands have played in the development of new technologies—and our bodies with them—there have been numerous attempts to automate the human hand out of the equation.

Automata, proto-robots built to act as if working under their own power but actually following a predetermined sequence of operations, have existed for over a millennium. Many of them are dedicated to mimicking the unique human performances of the hand, although they haven’t reproduced its intelligence.

How do bodies become information? In 1804, a French weaver patented a different kind of automaton that mimics and would eventually replace the intelligent hand. Named for its inventor, Joseph-Marie Jacquard, the Jacquard machine is an oft-cited ancestor in the history of modern computing. Fitted to a handloom, it is a mechanical surrogate for the weaver’s hand, a physical addendum to the weaving apparatus that automates the production of elaborately patterned fabric. By transforming the competence and creativity of the weaver’s hand into programmable code—ultimately supplanting that human expertise—the Jacquard loom became the first numerical control machine.

A 1951 advertisement for IBM’s Type 604 Electronic Calculating Punch featured a glowing human hand overlaid with its mechanical surrogate: vacuum tube modules arranged like fingers. The tagline reads, “Fingers You Can Count On.” More than just a sales pitch, the image dramatized a broader shift: the intelligent hand, once a symbol of craftsmanship, reimagined as a modular, electronic appendage—human labor abstracted into interchangeable, replaceable parts.

History, however, reminds us of the hand’s abiding creativity. By designing interfaces that serve human needs, rather than corporate metrics, we can reclaim the hand’s role as a living bridge between mind, body, and world.

Voice

Until the dawn of sound recording, the human voice was tethered to the human body. Speech and song were ephemeral, dissipating in almost the same instant that they sprang into being. At the end of the 19th century, sound recording severed the voice from the body and gave it a new and separate existence, extending what the technology of writing had long begun to do. Human voices could now endure beyond death, transcending the limits of the human body.

Like the hand, the voice is a threshold between body and world. Once only borne aloft in the air, its vibrations now travel wires, waves, and code. If writing extended the hand’s reach, sound recording gave the voice a second existence. Translated by machines, abstracted into data, and refigured into new forms, the voice has lived a thousand new lives—pressed into vinyl, remixed by DJs, morphed by Auto-Tune, parsed by speech recognition, and now reanimated by AI-generated vocal clones. These technologies have not only transformed how the human voice sounds, but how it is made, perceived, and preserved.

Ear

If the voice is how we reach outward, the ear is how we are reached. Our ears, once tuned by acoustic communities, are now calibrated by machines. From choirs to cochlear implants, music boxes to algorithmic playlists, listening has become a mediated act— private, curated, and data-driven.

The music box marked a turning point in the modern objectification of sound. Music boxes began to divorce ears from other speaking and singing bodies, restructuring listening from a communal act into an insular exchange between individual and machine. In so doing, music boxes began to create the channels for a new kind of hearing that would lead to our digital ears.

Since then, numerous mass-produced sound technologies have nourished and evolved the intimacy between ears and listening machines. Phonographs, gramophones, transistor radios, and later, magnetic tape, made it possible for people to listen to music in the absence of a performer. Several sound recording and storage technologies emerged in the wake of the phonograph’s invention. Whereas the music box, as an automated instrument, generated sound on its own, later technologies recorded and reproduced human performances. Each has spawned new auditory cultures, and with them, consonant reimaginations of the ear. As they transformed the voice from its pure alignment with the human soul to a more machinic object, they transformed listening cultures—and the ear itself.

Eye

Contemporary cameras, as we know them, unfix the eye from the body. Though now ubiquitous—embedded in nearly every phone and capable of high-resolution, high-focus capture— this was not always the case. Photography’s chief ancestor, the camera obscura, relies on the proximity of eye and image. Essentially a pinhole device, the camera obscura projects light through a small aperture into a darkened room or box, casting a live, inverted replica of the world outside—a shadow play of reality.

By the 16th century, the camera obscura had become a metaphor for human vision. This analogy defines the relationship between the eye and the seen world by immediacy: just as the outside world is projected onto a darkened room, so too is reality believed to be projected onto the eye through rays of light—an image cast upon the body. Photography descends from the camera obscura, turning projection into permanence. Whereas the camera obscura was ephemeral, the photograph imprints projected reality onto a surface, making it durable, portable, and endlessly reproducible. In so doing, it initiated the detachment of seeing from the physical act of looking. Vision, once anchored in the immediacy of the body, became something that could be captured, stored, and transmitted.

Yet, even as both vision and photography evolved into increasingly complex systems, no longer limited to the eye or lens, the metaphor of the camera as the eye endures. The persistence of this metaphor illustrates a deeper paradox at the heart of digital embodiment: we trust what we see, even though we are aware that sight can be deceiving. When machines inherit the work of the senses, we transfer that trust to them—forgetting, once again, that the eye has always been fallible. And as developments in imaging technologies have evolved, so too has the digital eye. Today’s digital eyes—those of smartphone cameras, Photoshop algorithms, and computer vision systems—do not see as the eye sees, nor do they operate by the same principles of immediacy that the camera obscura once did. They reconstruct, enhance, filter, and infer. As we increasingly outsource seeing to machines, the very nature of sight itself is transformed. Yet, cameras and the images they produce remain important referents for our reality, even as that reality becomes ever more fluid, manipulated, and abstracted. The digital gaze does not simply record the world; it remakes the very relationship between our bodies and the realities they claim to represent, between what is seen and what is believed.

Foot

The human foot is a marvel of evolutionary engineering, distinguishing us from other animals. The first hominins, the earliest members of our lineage, didn’t have large brains like modern humans, didn’t use sophisticated technology, and didn’t talk. They did, however, walk on two legs. Our feet are the very foundation of modern humanity as we know it. Bipedalism is the most ancient human adaptation, setting the stage for many characteristics that distinguish us as humans, including our reliance on tools and technology, language, and dietary flexibility. It freed human hands for tools and communication, and breath for speech. Walking—upright, that is—is as central to our humanity as writing and singing to one another. Our feet embody this extraordinary legacy and history. As Leonardo da Vinci is said to have remarked, “The human foot is a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art.”

As vehicles for our bodies, our feet serve as a primary interface between ourselves and the world. With the advent of self-tracking technologies that turn our footsteps into information, they, too, have become fodder for systems that flatten the nuance of lived experience. The notion that one must walk ten thousand steps daily for health has become almost as much of a maxim as that ancient adage, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” It might be truer to say instead that a journey of ten thousand steps begins with a single pedometer.

While walking may be the most natural thing in the world (for those who are ambulatory), it is increasingly being integrated into technological systems. Impregnated with information-gathering sensors, smart cities are the inexorable conclusion of this logic. Cities are becoming algorithmic labs for human movement.

Body

Technology desires disappearance. When a tool is working as intended, you don’t think about it—until it breaks. This kind of disappearance doesn’t just require a good tool; it demands skill and practice of the human using it. Like a surgeon with a scalpel or a carpenter with a chisel using their intelligent hands, disappearance is a collaboration between well-made tools and disciplined bodies. Digital technologies push this further still: the ideal tool is one that will completely dissolve, making the human body itself the interface.

We’re already living in mixed reality. Our bodies are entangled in a dance with data: computers track our keystrokes, footsteps, and heartbeats; they reproduce and organize our movements; intelligent systems choreograph our journeys, large and small; we socialize through electronic sound and through avatars in virtual spaces. Extended reality technologies don’t simply show us other worlds; they clarify the one we’re already in and reveal how deeply our lives are intertwined with computation.

We burnish our digital images (I’ll admit that mine is lightly airbrushed by the Touch Up My Appearance option in my Zoom preferences). We feed ourselves to the technologies we use, seeking to transcend the limits of our bodies and minds. We are spit out as ghosts of the platforms that puppet us. The term “ghost in the machine” has been used as a crude and derogatory jab at Descartes’s mind-body dualism—the idea that our minds animate our bodies like spirits inhabiting a shell. One version of the body digital inverts this: the mind floats free, divorced from our bodies and assimilated by platforms. But we are not disembodied minds. We are deeply rooted in flesh, blood, and bone. Any future worth building must remember that.

Mind

In their landmark 1998 paper “The Extended Mind,” philosophers of mind Andy Clark and David Chalmers asked, “Where does the mind stop and the rest of the world begin?” Their answer has become one of the most influential articulations of the extended mind thesis, which rejects the conventional view that the mind resides solely within the brain, stopping at the skull and skin. Rather, they proposed that cognition arises from the dynamic interplay of brain, body, and tool. A pencil, a notebook, or a computer screen can become so integrated into our mental processes that they functionally bring about our cognitive abilities as much as our brains. The mind, in this view, is porous: it reaches into the world, and the world reaches back. Cognition, then, is not contained but distributed—emerging from an ecology of brain, body, and environment.

From grocery lists to encyclopedias, writing extends the human mind by offloading the burdens of memory, storing and retrieving information outside the body. Writing is a technology that allows us to outsource individual and collective memory. By sustaining the creation of informational archives that can be referenced, literacy made possible new forms of interaction with language. New techniques of information storage afforded the structured accumulation of knowledge. Once formulated, information can be reformulated with increasing precision. In this way, literacy laid the groundwork for the disciplines of logic, philosophy, and science in general—the knowledge infrastructures that would, centuries later, give rise to AI.

Writing has never been a solo act. Facilitated by AI, our writing should connect us with our past as much as with our future, with one another as much as ourselves. The best human writing challenges us to open our minds, not close them. We owe it to ourselves to tell stories with this new technology that does the same. If we must write with machines, let it not be to replicate, but to reimagine ourselves.

Rather than reflexively embracing or rejecting new technologies, we must ask: Do they expand or contract our horizons? Do they sustain care, curiosity, and complexity—or reduce us to what can be measured and predicted? How do they shape how we see, move, feel, speak, and connect? The history of our digital bodies shows that the ecologies we create are never neutral. They reflect how we choose to know one another, and how we allow ourselves to be known.

Between Life and Death: What Near-Death Experiences Reveal About Consciousness

Near-death experiences (NDEs) are a widely reported yet poorly understood phenomenon. Though there is no agreed-upon definition of an NDE, it has been described as “profound psychological events with transcendental and mystical elements, typically occurring in individuals close to death or in situations of intense physical or emotional danger,” according to a study published in the Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2009. NDEs are reported in 4 to 9 percent of the population and among nearly 23 percent of patients who are critically ill. Healthy individuals who think they are in danger may also experience them.

With the improvement of technology and resuscitation techniques, people have become more curious about this topic. The 2012 book Proof of Heaven, written by retired American neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, popularized the concept of NDEs. As he lay close to death, in a coma caused by a brain infection, he had a transformative experience that included traveling through a black void “brimming over with light: a light that seemed to come from a brilliant orb,” he said, according to BBC Science Focus magazine.

Such experiences, for which we have only the subjective reports of patients, usually occur when an individual is in “transitory and reversible cardiac arrest,” which is another way of saying, “clinically dead.” Without resuscitation and other interventions, recovery of brain function more than three minutes after a cardiac arrest is rare. For a person to be dead, however, the U.S. Uniform Determination of Death Act requires that physicians decide, by applying prevailing clinical criteria, that cardiorespiratory or brain functions are absent and cannot be restored.

Patients who have had NDEs often report having heard themselves being pronounced dead. Still, far from experiencing alarm, they report feeling a sense of peace. These accounts frequently include hearing unusual noises, seeing a dark tunnel, experiencing out-of-body sensations, encountering spiritual beings, witnessing a bright light or a “being of light,” entering a realm of bewildering spirits, sensing a boundary or limit, and finally, returning to their physical bodies. According to the study published in 2009, interviews with individuals who have had NDEs have pointed out five stages that occur in the following order: “(1) a feeling of peace and well-being; (2) separation from the physical body; (3) entering a region of darkness; (4) seeing a bright light; and (5) going through the light and entering another realm.”

Origin of the Term

The term “near-death experience” was coined by physician Raymond Moody in 1975, who used it in the context of out-of-body experiences, although the term had been used three years earlier by John C. Lilly. In his book Life After Life (1976), Moody claimed that 150 near-death survivors reported positive visionary experiences of passing down a dark tunnel toward a bright light. But descriptions of these experiences go back further.

The French term expérience de mort imminente (experience of imminent death) was proposed by French psychologist and epistemologist Victor Egger in the 1890s. Such experiences were noted by clinicians based on observations of workers who had fallen from scaffolds, soldiers who had suffered terrible injuries on the battlefield, and climbers who had tumbled from slopes. In 1968, Celia Green published an analysis of 400 first-hand accounts of out-of-body experiences. She was the first to see NDEs as experiences worth investigating rather than as anomalous perceptions or hallucinations.

Who Reports a Near-Death Experience?

Scientists have tried to explain how and why NDEs occur. There are two scales typically used to measure NDEs based on subjective accounts: The Weighted Core Experience Index (WCEI) and the NDE scale created by Greyson. The WCEI has 10 components, which are scored based on their presence or absence. (The maximum score is 29.)

Clinical studies suggest that the characteristics of NDEs do not vary by culture. However, some researchers have revealed differences. “The variability across cultures is most likely to be due to our interpretation and verbalizing of such esoteric events through the filters of language, cultural experiences, religion, education and their influence on our belief systems either shedding influence as an individual variable or more often perhaps by their rich interplay between these factors,” stated a 2008 study published in the journal Transcultural Psychiatry.

The frequency of these experiences in survivors of cardiac arrest varies from 2 to 13 percent, and they seem to be more common in younger patients. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of being resuscitated, a 2001 Lancet study found, adding that “[t]he process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.”

The Lancet study also stated that 62 (18 percent) of 344 cardiac arrest survivors reported a near-death experience, and 41 of them scored six or more on the WCEI. Also, there were no reports of patients experiencing distressing NDEs. Factors such as medication, fear of death before cardiac arrest, and the duration of the NDE were ruled out as possible explanations for why the patients had the experience. However, people below age 60 were more likely than older people to report an NDE, along with people suffering their first myocardial infarction. Women were more likely to report vivid NDEs after surviving cardiac arrest, and they tended to be older: 66 versus 61 years of age for male survivors.

In another study published by Signa Vitae in 2011, researchers showed that the severity of a life-threatening situation was associated with a higher incidence of NDEs, suggesting that they are more likely to occur in patients who find themselves “closer to death or have a lesser possibility for survival.”

The Organic Explanation

Researchers Dr. Charlotte Martial, Coma Science Group at the University Hospital of Liège, and Chris Timmermann, Imperial College Psychedelic Research Group, believe that there is a “scientific, neurochemical explanation for NDEs,” according to the 2020 article in BBC Science Focus. Martial said she is “very convinced by such explanations.” However, Timmerman acknowledges that “definite proof might be impossible with our current tools because it would require researchers to probe the brains of human beings at the moment of death, which is unethical.”

Many scientists, however, believe that even without the limitations Timmerman cites, they can still conclude that NDEs are the result of chemically induced brain functions when the brain is under stress. To explain the phenomenon, researchers have theorized that it results from endorphin-induced limbic brain activity, altered temporal lobe activity, and anoxic seizures due to a sudden lack of oxygen in the brain. They have also proposed ketamine-like endogenous hallucinogens, cerebral hypoxia (a lack of oxygen) or hypercarbia (an excess of CO2), an excess of serotonin or endorphins, and responses to prescribed drugs as causative factors.

Significant epileptiform electroencephalographic (EEG) activity, as seen in epilepsy, has also been observed in individuals who reported having an NDE when compared with control patients.

During cardiac arrest, brain activity is assumed to be diminishing. Nonetheless, researchers who conducted studies on rats have found more brain activity than they initially expected, thanks to brain scans that reveal a surge of synchronized gamma oscillations as well as high levels of interregional coherence and feedback connectivity, all of which may account for NDEs. Another theory, shared in the 2017 book Coma and Disorders of Consciousness, edited by Caroline Schnakers and Steven Laureys, suggests that impaired cerebral oxygen levels in the context of a cardiac arrest might lead to a disruption of the physiological balance between conscious and unconscious states, resulting in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, which could cause visual hallucinations. Some of those who have reported experiencing an NDE have also been found to be more sensitive to being woken during REM sleep and sleep paralysis.

“Of course, the brain does funny things when it’s running out of oxygen,” wrote the neuroscientist Colin Blakemore. He added, “The odd perceptions are just the consequences of confused activity in the temporal lobes.”

Psychological Explanation

Psychological models proposed to explain NDEs have focused on dissociative, protective mechanisms that might manifest as wish-fulfilling hallucinations in a situation of danger. These mechanisms might also lead to partial or distorted memories when a patient is unconscious. Nonetheless, researchers still have to determine why some people reported an NDE and others, who were also close to death, did not. One explanation is that patients who reported an NDE might be predisposed due to activity in the temporal lobe of the brain. Those who survived an NDE subsequently reported a change in their beliefs, attitudes, or values. They also described having a reduced fear of death, greater motivation, and a better stress response.

Researchers have been unable to determine whether surviving an NDE causes these changes or whether the realization of the closeness to death is responsible for them. Most, however, agreed that surviving an NDE had a profound effect on their family, social, and spiritual relationships, as the effect was not limited to patients alone. A 2012 study of 476 hospital nurses in Italy found that 34 percent of those who had personally encountered NDE were more positive about the phenomenon and the assistance they could provide to their patients than the nursing staff who had not treated such patients.

Is it possible that dying or the awareness of impending death can be a triggering factor for an NDE? As the researcher J.E. Owens and his colleagues have written: “[I]t would seem that among individuals who were not near-death, their experiences could be precipitated by the belief that they were.” This is known as the “expectation hypothesis,” which postulates that NDEs originate from an altered state of consciousness triggered by a life-threatening condition that, without medical care, could result in death.

In cases like this, the individual’s system of beliefs and expectations of both dying and a possible afterlife might make the occurrence of an NDE more likely. Another theory, known as the “depersonalization and dissociation hypothesis,” postulates that, upon facing a life-threatening situation, an individual disconnects from the external world and experiences fantasies as a projective defense mechanism to make the imminence of death more comprehensible and less distressing, according to Coma and Disorders of Consciousness.

An Integrative Model

An integrative model of organic theories has proposed that traumatic events cause brain stress. This model suggests that the release of neurotransmitters produces effects such as analgesia (the inability to feel pain), euphoria, and detachment. These effects, along with decreases in oxygen, can lead to hallucinations and a detached perspective on one’s life. As these neurotransmitters travel through the brain, they can produce further hallucinations and the sensation of seeing a bright light.

Many of the key features of an NDE bear remarkable similarities to those seen in people who have taken psychedelic drugs. Psychedelics act on the serotonergic system in the brain (the system in the brain which controls the neurotransmitter serotonin and is involved in mood and perception, along with other functions). Such psychedelics include lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin (the hallucinogenic compound in magic mushrooms), and dimethyltryptamine (DMT), or the “spirit molecule,” found in many plants of the Amazon basin.

A team led by Timmermann and Robin Carhart-Harris at Imperial College, including Martial in Belgium, in 2018, observed “few discernible differences” between actual NDEs and experiences induced by DMT. This view is based on the similarity of the “first-person descriptions of approximately 15,000 psychedelic ‘trips’ with the retrospective first-person accounts of several hundred NDEs collected in Belgium and the USA,” stated Science Focus. According to the interpretation given by these scientists, the NDEs were much like drug-induced trips, especially for those who had taken ketamine, a “dissociative psychedelic” that is used as an anesthetic.

Still, there are disagreements among some experts. International psychedelics expert David E. Nichols argued in a 2018 paper “that the concentrations of DMT in the brain are too minute to be responsible for the psychoactive effects observed during NDEs. However, he says that ‘as a scientist, I do believe there is a neurochemical explanation for an NDE,’” added the Science Focus article. He did admit that since no one has come back from the dead to report what happened to them, no one can be sure that a drug such as DMT or ketamine is a valuable model for an NDE.

A First-Person Account of an NDE

The well-known journalist and writer Sebastian Junger (author of the bestselling book The Perfect Storm) recounts his own NDE experience in his 2025 book In My Time of Dying: How I Came Face-to-Face with the Idea of an Afterlife. In an interview with Maria Schriver’s Sunday Paper, he discussed how common NDEs are: “They happen in societies around the world and certainly have happened forever. Our medical knowledge allows doctors to bring people who are dying, like I was, back into the world of the living. We have many more stories of people who are on the threshold and what they remember. There are some medical explanations, but I found them to be not entirely sufficient. Some researchers believe that it’s not proof but evidence of some kind of post-death existence. Then other people who are equally well-informed say nonsense, this is neurochemicals, and it’s blood oxygen, and it’s a form of seizure. So, there are all kinds of straightforward medical explanations for the dying brain having visions.”

As he lay dying, he saw his father. “That could have been entirely cooked up by my own dying brain, and it is still comforting. The relationship that we have with the dead continues in our minds until we die. At the very least, the relationship I had in my mind with my father changed. He was very sweet, but he was on the spectrum, and he was hard to reach emotionally as a father. So, I didn’t sort of count on him throughout my life and as a child for that baseline emotional support. But then, there he was, and it really did sort of change things for me.”

His brush with death made him, an atheist, reconsider his beliefs: “but this all did make me think that possibly on a subatomic or quantum level, we don’t really understand existence, life, death, reality, consciousness, or universe and that there’s some sort of post-death reality to the individual that we can’t —and maybe never will be able to—make sense of and then that’s what people keep bumping into around experiences like this.”

A Problem for Research

Some scientists, such as Dr. Bruce Greyson, professor emeritus of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia and co-author of The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, think that “NDEs …present us with data that are difficult to explain by current physiological or psychological models,” he wrote in 2013.

Is it even possible to explain NDEs? Most published works on NDEs are considered both “retrospective and sporadic.” These events pose a particular challenge, as there is no certainty about their occurrence and they are generally not reported soon after they happen but rather days, months, or even years later, which can lead to distortions in personal accounts.

“[T]here is currently no consensual or satisfying scientific explanation for NDEs. … The claims that NDEs are evidence for life after death may have contributed to the reluctance of designing rigorous empirical protocols to study such a ‘pseudoscience’ phenomenon,” states Coma and Disorders of Consciousness. The emerging neurosciences evidence suggests that NDEs can be explained by modifications or alterations of brain functions, leading to an altered state of consciousness in critically ill patients.

Because studies of these events have been limited to a few patients, researchers have also found that it is impossible to determine which factors account for these events. The administration of drugs might also trigger the effect during the period of arrest.

Unpleasant Responses

Not all NDEs are pleasant, nor do they imbue patients with the sense that there is life after death. Studies of patients who have undergone frightening experiences may be challenging to conduct because people are reluctant to report them. These “inverse experiences,” as they’re called, are often perceived as an alien reality and are highly stressful. Other reports have documented “perceptions of emptiness” and even a “‘hellish’ encounter with threatening entities, and various accoutrements of the traditional hell, marked by perceptions of impending judgment and torment,” added the book.

These distressing NDEs occur under a wide range of circumstances and feature many of the same elements as pleasant NDEs. Researchers who have reviewed clinical studies spanning decades have been unable to explain why these types of NDEs occur or why specific individuals may be susceptible to them. The idea that “good” people will have pleasant NDEs and bad people distressing ones has been debunked.

Survivors of an inverse NDE find the experience hostile. One man who got thrown from a horse experienced himself floating “at treetop height, watching emergency medical technicians working over… his body. ‘No! No! This isn’t right!’ He screamed, ‘Put me back!’ but they did not hear him. Next, he was shooting through darkness toward a bright light, flashing past shadowy people who seemed to be deceased family members waiting. He was panic-stricken by the bizarre scenario and his inability to affect what was happening,” according to a narrative published in the Missouri Medicine journal in 2014.

An NDE of the “void” is an existential encounter often accompanied by a sense of being alone, isolated, or being annihilated.

In the so-called hellish scenarios, survivors report plummeting to the gates of hell or being escorted through a desolate landscape and encountering wandering spirits that seemed to be lost and in pain. Another survivor, an atheist university professor, described being “torn apart by malevolent beings.”

Distressing near-death experiences are both fascinating and frustrating as altered states of consciousness. Because of the deeply rooted concept of hell in Western culture and its Christian association with eternal physical torment, they pose serious challenges to individuals who may shape their lives around such a profoundly durable event, as well as to their families, friends, and physicians. In the absence of clear-cut clinical data and universal cultural views, physicians are advised that neutrality of opinion and careful listening are likely the best professional practice for dealing with distressing near-death experiences.

Long-Term Effects

How people report NDEs appears to be influenced in many respects by the culture they were raised in—for instance, whether they believe that they have glimpsed heaven or hell. Christians tend to see Jesus or St. Peter, Hindus see Brahma, and Buddhists may see the “bardo,” or transitional states between reincarnations as described in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Longitudinal studies have demonstrated long-lasting transformational effects of near-death experiences on a person’s understanding of life and self, social attitudes, and a shift in social customs and religious beliefs. Those survivors who have undergone distressing NDEs, on the other hand, may suffer from long-term trauma. One of the principal components of near-death experiences is the out-of-body experience, which is associated with the partial impairment of consciousness and disruption of normal bodily functions.

According to the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation, which has collected more than 5,000 accounts from across the world, most survivors reported a sense of peace and energy when they felt as though they were dying. They observed that time did not exist during these experiences. Marieta Pehlivanova, a research assistant professor of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine’s Division of Perceptual Studies, noted during an interview that those who had a brush with death and did not have an NDE also experienced changes in their lives. Still, the effects were subtle.

However, survivors of NDEs who participated in a study by Akierah Binas and Jamie Gruman, both from the University of Guelph, Canada, reported a desire to engage in work that was more meaningful and fulfilling after their experiences. “I was not interested in doing nonsense,” one participant commented. Many of the other participants reported that they had changed careers by shifting their work priorities, with some even going on to start their own companies. Rather than focusing on external measures of success such as salary or titles, they were more interested in living lives that were “authentic” and motivated by a need to make a positive difference, wrote the two researchers in the Conversation. The findings of a previous research are consistent with these observations. “Specifically,” NDEs shift individual outlooks on life and can serve as catalysts for transformation, influencing how people relate to others.”

The Line Between Life and Death

The boundary between life and death, never distinct to begin with, has only become more blurred. Scientists have found evidence of what they term “a third state,” in which the cells of a “dead” organism are not only alive but are also capable of sometimes acquiring new abilities they never had while the organism was alive.

This research, which was published in the journal Physiology, was led by Peter Noble from the University of Washington in Seattle and Alex Pozhitkov from the City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California.

“Life and death are traditionally viewed as opposites,” the researchers wrote in the Conversation. “But the emergence of new multicellular life-forms from the cells of a dead organism introduces a ‘third state’ that lies beyond the traditional boundaries of life and death.”

The cells in this third state demonstrate their new capabilities when given sufficient fuel in the form of nutrients, oxygen, bioelectricity, or biochemical signals. In 2021, for instance, scientists found that skin cells from dead frogs could spontaneously form multicellular organisms—actual living machines called “xenobots.” These xenobots used hairlike structures called cilia to move through their surroundings, a behavior they never exhibited while the frogs were alive. These xenobots could also heal themselves and were capable of limited replication.

In another study, it was found that human lung cells derived from dead organisms could self-organize into tiny multicellular organisms known as “anthrobots.” Ranging in size from the width of a human hair to the tip of a sharpened pencil, anthrobots can act as multicellular robots capable of self-assembly, self-healing, and repair, and demonstrate a healing effect on damaged nerve cells.

How these xenobots and anthrobots do these astonishing things is a mystery. Some scientists speculate that a hidden circuit of electrical currents animates them or that they require an adequate supply of nutrients and energy before they are reanimated. Other scientists believe that temperature and environment may play an essential role in the ‘postmortem landscape.” The unusual behavior of specific cells in this third state does hold out the possibility of innovative treatments—to dissolve arterial plaque in atherosclerosis, for instance, or clear mucus in people with cystic fibrosis.

It is unlikely we will ever fully understand the causes of near-death experiences, leaving us to rely on survivors’ accounts. People readily embrace uplifting stories—less so the disturbing ones—because they seem to affirm belief in life after death. While scientists studying NDEs attribute them to neurological causes, even conclusive findings are unlikely to overturn the widespread conviction that clinical death marks not an end, but a beginning.

You Can Learn a Lot About Someone’s Mind From the Way They Talk

Sherlock Holmes, the famous fictional detective, believed that his brother, Mycroft, could also have been a brilliant solver of crimes if he had not been so impossibly lazy. Mycroft was large and slow-moving, and he avoided all unnecessary exertion. He enjoyed sitting by a window and making ingenious deductions from his close observations of the people and activities he saw outside. But rousing himself to leave home and investigate some far-flung crime scene? That was not for him.

Mycroft did venture out to visit his beloved Diogenes Club across the street from his London apartment. The Diogenes Club was in most ways a typical British gentlemen’s club, stocked with many of the usual trappings to please a Victorian gentleman—drink, food, servants, comfy chairs in which to puff a cigar and read the newspaper. It deviated from other clubs in one glaring respect. Mycroft and the other club founders established a rule prohibiting an activity that was a mainstay of other gentlemen’s clubs. The rule was so strict that members who disobeyed it were expelled. What was this activity that Mycroft Holmes so deeply wanted to avoid?

Talking. The Diogenes Club forbade talking. It’s not entirely clear why the club founders made this rule, but I think I know why. Mycroft Holmes, deep thinker, exquisite observer, highly averse to expending effort, had made a brilliant deduction: Talking is hard work.

Talking is Hard

Talking is not physically demanding in the same way as running a marathon, but our brains are working much harder when we speak than when we’re reading or understanding someone else in conversation. We don’t notice the effort of talking because what’s going on in our brains is mainly hidden from us. We’re aware of what we say, and what other people are saying, and occasionally we’re aware when something goes wrong and there’s a misunderstanding. Most of the time, though, our brains don’t reveal what they’re doing or how much they’re working.

It’s challenging to measure mental effort because it’s hidden in the brain, but researchers have figured out some tricks to get a better sense of what’s going on. There’s an ingenious technique that doesn’t require assessing the difficult-to-measure activity, like the hidden mental work of talk planning. Instead, it asks how much this mental activity interferes with simultaneously doing a second activity that’s much easier to measure.

If talking is difficult and we make some research participants do something else while talking, then people should be slow on this second task or make lots of errors doing it, because their brains are being consumed with the demands of talking. And if comprehension is easier than talking, then people should be better at simultaneously doing this other activity while understanding another talker.

My favorite example of this method was developed by Amit Almor, who was previously a postdoctoral researcher in my lab. Now he’s a professor at the University of South Carolina.

Almor and his graduate students used the talking-plus-another-task technique to measure the difficulty of both speaking and comprehending someone else. They invited undergraduate students to bring a friend to the lab to have a conversation. In the experiment, the pair of friends sat down across from each other, each in front of a computer. The friends were told that they could talk to each other about whatever they wanted, but one of them was given a second job to do. The friend with the second job would see a moving dot on their computer screen, and they had to use the computer mouse to keep the cursor as close as possible to the dot. Keeping the cursor on the dot was tricky because the dot sometimes changed speed and direction unpredictably. The friend had to do this dot-tracking while still being involved in the conversation.

Almor’s research team used computer software to measure how many screen pixels separated the moving dot and the cursor at any time, which gave them an exact measure of when the dot-tracking was going well and when it wasn’t. They calculated the accuracy of dot-tracking at many different conversation points—when the tracker was speaking versus listening, starting to speak, finishing their turn in the conversation, listening to the start of the other person’s speech, and listening when the speaker was winding down.

You can probably predict the first big result: Overall, folks were much worse at dot-tracking while they were speaking than while they were listening. But the experiment also revealed interesting patterns of how difficulty waxes and wanes during a conversation. On the talking side, beginning to talk about something is tough, resulting in relatively poor performance on dot-tracking. Talking gets much easier when the speaker is close to finishing what they were saying.

Why? Because when we first start to say something, talking already requires us to do two things at once. We are doing all the muscle movements to get the first words out, and we’re simultaneously doing the mental processes of planning what’s going to come out next. Toward the end of whatever the speaker is saying, it becomes much easier because there’s nothing left to plan, and the speaker just has to say the final words.

Meanwhile, the listener has a relatively easy job early on, but when the speaker is finishing up, difficulty for the listener spikes, and their dot-tracking tanks. Again, why? It’s because the listener senses that the speaker is getting ready to finish what they wanted to say, and it’s soon going to be time to reply. Now suddenly, the listener, who’s soon to become the one talking, has several jobs to do at once. They must continue to understand what their friend is saying, start planning their reply, and also figure out exactly when it’s their turn to talk.

Reply planning begins early, even as the other person is still talking, because waiting until they finish would result in a long, awkward pause while the listener figures out what to say. Indeed, devising the plan for what is about to be said—picking the words, putting them in order, arranging their pronunciation—usually turns out to be the most challenging component of talking, in part because planning is often being done while also listening or speaking.

If talking makes it hard to follow a dot on a screen, imagine what it can do to driving a car. Many states prohibit driving while texting or talking on a cell phone. Most people assume these laws exist because drivers may take their eyes off the road and their hands off the wheel while using a cell phone. Those are very good reasons for prohibiting cell phone use while driving, but that’s only part of the story. Studies using a driving simulator rather than a dot-tracking task show similar results: Simply speaking aloud impairs driving, and vice versa.

Lying While Talking (and Detecting Lies) is Even Harder

People sometimes lie. Maybe you’ve even tried it yourself. Of course you have, because everyone does at least some minor lying. Perhaps you’ve claimed that another engagement prevents you from going to your cousin’s barbecue, or you’ve called in sick on a workday packed with boring meetings, or you’ve told your sister that you’re not upset at her, not one bit.

Part of the reason that we produce these small-scale lies is that we can get away with them. That’s another way of saying that the people we’re lying to often aren’t sure whether we’re lying or not. But language analyses might not be so easily fooled.

Left to our own intuitions, we are terrible at detecting lies. Several careful studies of lie detection have shown that we’re often no better than random guessing in distinguishing truth and lies in all kinds of situations. We struggle to distinguish between genuine and fake opinions, real and fake news, honest and untruthful reports in crime investigations, and authentic and counterfeit reviews of merchandise posted online.

Imagine for a moment that you’re on trial for a crime, that witnesses are testifying, and that twelve earnest people in the jury box are doing their job, listening carefully. Unfortunately, those jurors may be incapable of figuring out which witnesses are telling the truth.

We’re in big trouble if detectives, prosecutors, judges, and jurors can’t tell a truthful witness report from lies, but the problems don’t stop there. Fake news and other lies have led many people to try crackpot remedies for diseases or reject scientifically supported medical care, sometimes with fatal consequences. False advertising and scams routinely defraud people of their life savings. All over the world, governments use disinformation to control citizens in authoritarian regimes and to influence citizens of foreign countries, with the United States being a prime target of disinformation campaigns from overseas.

It’s no wonder that we can develop feelings of cynicism and helplessness around determining what’s true, eroding our faith in science, medicine, government, media, and each other, even in situations in which objective evidence is available.

Several education programs have been launched to train high school and college students to identify false information better. Some of these programs have failed spectacularly: In the process of exposing the students to false statements in the service of training them to distinguish truth and lies, the students don’t just fail to improve; they get worse. The exposure to fake information during training makes it seem more familiar and therefore more true. At least with the programs available so far, we’re not going to train ourselves out of this problem anytime soon. That’s why some people look to technology for help in sorting truth from lies.

The first device to offer some improvement in lie detection was the polygraph machine. You’ve likely seen these in old movies and detective shows. An interviewer asks someone a series of questions, and physiological measures—the interviewee’s heart rate, breathing, and so on—help the trained polygraph examiner to judge whether the person is lying or telling the truth.

Alas, many studies have concluded that polygraph-assisted lie detection is not highly accurate and is subject to biases by the human polygraph operator. That’s why polygraphs are associated with old movies—they’re less commonly used today. Polygraphs also have the disadvantage that the person being examined must be physically present, wearing all the measurement devices. That’s unfortunate, because there are endless situations where we want to know the truth of something said on the phone, on social media, in a trial, in a public debate, or in a podcast or TV interview.

Computer analysis of transcripts of speech or writing might fill some of the need for better lie detection. These analyses don’t require the talker to be present, and they don’t require any special equipment to be worn by the talker.

There are two general ways in which a person’s talk might reveal their truthfulness. The first idea is that truthful thoughts might slip out while someone is telling lies. This theory arose over a century ago, proposed by Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. Freud believed that errors during talking could reveal our unconscious thoughts, as when someone accidentally says the truth, “I had to kill them,” when they had intended to lie and say, “I had to save them.” If Freud is right about unconscious thoughts leaking into our talk, we might look at errors like these for signs of lying.

Well, it’s not that simple. Applying what we know about how we plan our talk, this “kill them” error likely reflects the word kill being pulled out of long-term memory instead of save. Yes, this mistake in memory retrieval might indicate the talker’s failed intent to suppress the fact that they have killed someone. But other possibilities are also likely. Kill might have come up from memory because the person contemplated saying the truthful statement, “I had to save them from being killed.” Or the error might arise for some other reason; talkers make word substitution errors like these all the time, without any hidden thoughts.

If I accidentally say, “Turn right,” instead of “Turn left,” or “I’ll chop the onions,” when I mean that I’m chopping the garlic, I’m not lying or revealing any unconscious obsessions with garlic or left turns. Errors like these happen regularly because the process of retrieving just the right words from memory is complex and imperfect. Mistakes happen, and we can’t use them as clear evidence of lying.

If we can’t rely on errors to reveal the truth in our conversations, we need to explore a second method: the fact that talking is hard work. Remember that it can be quite challenging to talk while doing something else, such as driving or tracking a moving dot on a computer screen. Talking while lying is also doing several things at once: Someone who’s telling a story truthfully is using a memory of real events to drive their words and other aspects of planning what to say, but a liar is simultaneously planning their talking while also trying to make up something they didn’t experience and hide what they want to keep hidden.

The liar’s extra difficulty can be reflected in their talk. The liar’s story, which drives the words they choose, is likely going to be less detailed than when someone speaks truthfully, because the liar doesn’t have the real memory to draw on. The liar may also be trying to suppress reference to some real events but mix other events into their story, all while generally trying to sound like they’re telling the truth. Talking while lying makes for a cocktail of difficulty, and the consequence may be that a liar’s talk is not like the truth teller’s.

Researchers have tested these ideas by randomly assigning people to either tell the truth or lie about something—such as a specific event, their opinion on a controversial issue, and so on. The researchers then analyzed patterns in speech or writing to search for features that distinguish the people who were told to lie from the ones who were told to tell the truth. In some cases, other folks were asked to read the statements and try to identify which ones were true and which were lies.

These studies have turned up several interesting results. Once again, human judges weren’t any better than random guessing at detecting true versus false statements. Computer analyses of the language of truthful and lying talkers showed better results. The language analyses correctly assigned two-thirds of the written and spoken statements to the “truth” and “lie” categories. That’s still far from perfect, but it’s much better than we can do on our own.

As usual, the computer analyses are making their guesses based on a large pile of cues that they uncover, but we can look at some of the significant patterns. Overall, truthful texts had more complex language than the lies. This difference played out in several ways, including the factual statements having more abstract thought-related words, such as the verbs think and believe. The factual statements also had more words indicating nuance in beliefs, like except and without.

False statements often used very common verbs, such as “go,” and provided little discussion of the nuances of any opinion. A liar’s fake message is sketchy compared to someone’s real report, and the phony message can’t generate rich descriptive words, leaving the liar’s story limited to generalities.

Lying on a Larger Scale: Fake News

Researchers are trying to take these controlled experiments, in which they know who is lying and who is not, out into the real world, to address issues such as detecting fake news. Fake news is typically written by professional fake-news writers rather than everyday people instructed to lie, as in the study we just saw. Fake news might therefore be harder to detect than lies generated on command in an experiment.

The difficulty in spotting fake news is a serious problem. Even provably false statements can persuade some people, and all of us are likely tempted to believe some fake news, given our overall low skill in detecting lies.

Computer algorithms trained to distinguish real and fake news have found that the counterfeit reports tend to be more surprising than real news. Most real news has some sameness to it—a new law was passed, the on-ramp to Highway 12 is closed for road repairs, travelers are experiencing holiday flight delays, same old stuff. Real journalists file reports on important events even if they are not particularly surprising, but fake news is designed to grab our attention. On average, fake news is more surprising and unusual than the real thing. Whereas unprofessional liars produce lies that are vague and neutral, the professional lies of fake news go for the attention-grabbing jugular.

Fake-news creators also include emotional commentary that manipulates the reader’s emotions. All of this interesting, emotionally engaging, and fake text can be churned out faster than real news can be reported, because fake news doesn’t require time-consuming editing, fact-checking, or other activities of objective journalism. It can even be generated by artificial intelligence systems that have been trained on the language patterns in fake news stories.

Fake news that includes photos tends to have better pictures than real news, as real news photographers are limited by the real people or scenes related to the story. In contrast, fake news generators can scour stock photo sites or manipulate photos to create something eye-popping.

The high levels of interest in and emotional engagement with fake news are undoubtedly part of the problem that fake news poses. A study of fake news on X (formerly Twitter) showed that it’s retweeted and reposted far more often than real news, spreading six times as fast by some measurements. And we can’t blame automated bots for this problem; the rapid spread of fake news appears to be due to humans retweeting it, not computerized bots. And consider what research studies have found about hate speech—the more often someone produces an opinion, the more strongly they believe it. We can expect the same regarding the repetition and reposting of fake news.

I’d like to be able to tell you that high-powered computer analyses are powerful allies in the fight against fake news, but the truth is much more sobering. There is intensive ongoing research on computer models for fake-news detection, and the field is rapidly evolving, but as I’m writing this, the many approaches being tested are not really doing that well.

Good detection of fake news requires not only knowledge of language patterns but also awareness of events going on in the world, which change every day. Fake news appears in various venues with distinct characteristics, including “news” articles, Facebook posts, blog posts, podcast discussions, fake videos, and more. Different approaches may be needed for various types of fake news. And alas, there is so much of it, and it spreads so quickly.

Stop to Consider the Following

Having read this far, you may be wondering whether you could use some of the information revealed by computer analyses of language to improve your own interactions with people or media. The computers are crunching enormous amounts of data and weighing thousands of possible cues. That’s more than we humans could ever detect, especially in the middle of a conversation. But could you make meaningful gains in your analysis of others by attending to just a few of the major talking patterns?

Maybe. I think your best bet is to use the information reported here to turn a skeptical eye to possible fake news—compared to real news, the fake stuff is more surprising, interesting, and emotionally engaging, with more pretty pictures and more viral spread. Fake news is hard to detect, but folks who are more analytic—pausing to think about what’s plausible versus what’s illogical—are better at spotting it than those who just go with their gut instinct. Someone who combines this analytical approach with the knowledge that fake news tends to be surprising and emotional may gain an additional edge in fake-news detection.

What we do get from this discussion of computer-aided analyses of talk is a sense of promise and pitfalls for the future. The computer-aided analyses are performing well and are expected to continue improving. They’re going to be applied more broadly. They might struggle with fake news for some time, but perhaps they’ll improve at identifying individuals who spout hate speech and are most likely to act on it.

If talk patterns could help law enforcement predict probable future hate crimes, those predictions could be the basis for important crime prevention attempts, including using the predictions to support legal injunctions against the hate talker, barring them from contact with the group they’re targeting, or using red flag laws that revoke the hate talker’s right to own guns.

Despite these potential benefits coming down the road, you do want to think about your views on having your own talk analyzed. How do you feel about the lack of privacy you’re inviting when you sign up for anything that might be tracking and storing your talk?

A majority of Americans believe that social media companies are not sufficiently protecting their privacy. Most likely, they are concerned about data breaches where private information is collected by unauthorized groups, such as hackers accessing bank account details or passwords. That’s definitely a concern. But we should also recognize that our talk is being analyzed to reveal information about us, and our acceptance of user agreements has likely given companies free rein to do so.

Given the almost daily advances in artificial intelligence and the current rush of products to market, we really don’t know what the upper limit will be on the success of talk analyses. We also don’t know the upper limit on where they’ll be applied or how much they will impact our lives. In the wrong hands, these algorithms could be used to attack free speech or discriminate against those who are legitimately questioning authority.

Collectively and individually, we should keep informed about both the promise of this technology and the safeguards that are needed to prevent abuse.

How Data-Driven Storytelling Helps Good Causes Get Funded

Chances are you’ve benefited from a nonprofit—whether by listening to public radio, adopting a pet from a shelter, attending a community arts event, or witnessing their support through local food pantries. Nonprofits are part of the invisible infrastructure that keeps communities running, meeting needs that businesses might ignore or governments don’t fully address. From youth mentorship to environmental action and crisis response, nonprofits fill vital gaps in our communities.

In a system that prioritizes profitability and scale, nonprofits are expected to address significant social issues while operating on limited budgets. They are tasked with carrying out their mission while also meeting the requirements of the people and institutions they depend on for funding.

To secure support from donors, foundations, or institutions, nonprofits are expected to do more than just describe what they do; they must demonstrate why it matters. It’s like a job interview: A personal story may spark interest, but without a track record of results, the opportunity slips away. The same is true for nonprofits—stories draw people in, but proof of success is what builds trust.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the global economic downturn, securing funding has become increasingly challenging for nonprofits. As a result, standing out to potential donors and funders is key to ensuring financial resilience and avoiding insolvency. One way to achieve this is through data-driven storytelling. Stories are a historically effective way of conveying information, and data inspires trust. When skillfully combined, these two approaches can help nonprofits to position themselves as uniquely equipped to meet the needs of their target populations, thereby increasing their chances of securing support from a given funder.

On a most basic level, stories organize information in a way that is compelling and logical. It’s why every organization’s website, nonprofit or otherwise, has a landing page with a distinct and persuasive “About” section. It is also why, even if not explicitly requested, no one expects a rote proposal or grant application that lists an organization’s needs without contextualizing them or demonstrating impact to stand out to funders. While this knowledge is generally universally understood, some apply it more successfully than others.

Take, for example, Craig and Marc Kielburger’s Free The Children, rebranded as WE Charity in 2016. The organization gained unprecedented momentum in its early years, propelled by the inspiring story of its cofounder: 12-year-old Craig Keilburger, who, while searching a newspaper for the comics section, came across an article about 12-year-old Iqbal Masih—a child debt slave who had escaped brutal conditions in a Pakistani carpet factory at age 10 only to be murdered two years later. Deeply affected by the realization that children around the world endured such injustices, Kielburger resolved to carry on Masih’s fight against child labor. He recruited 11 classmates, and together, alongside Craig’s brother Marc, they formed Free the Children out of the Keilburger family home.

In 1995, the group sent a petition with 3,000 signatures—demanding the release of child rights crusader Kailash Satyarthi—to the prime minister of India, packaged in a shoebox. The story quickly attracted headlines, leading Free the Children to be featured everywhere from “60 Minutes” to “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” and garnering worldwide attention and support, including financial backing.

It’s not difficult to see why this story was so resonant. It has all the right ingredients: an undeniable cause, a grassroots origin story, and a magnanimous youngster who saw injustice and felt compelled to correct it. The veracity of each detail aside, it is a narrative that is impossible to refuse. Despite facing serious scandals in recent years, including conflict of interest concerns over a grant awarded by the Trudeau federal government and accusations of white saviourism, WE Charity persists, likely due to the enduring impact of its origin story in the public’s mind.

Ultimately, funders want to support initiatives that reflect their values, or at least the values they want to be seen as holding. In the case of Free The Children, it presented itself as being at the forefront of the fight against child labor from the beginning. It drummed up enough visibility that not supporting them was akin to supporting child labor. This is the type of framing that is important to remember when crafting a narrative about a nonprofit.

For Free The Children, its origin story was a primary driving force behind its success. But we have come a long way since its heyday in the early aughts. Today, there are estimated to be more than 10 million nonprofits worldwide, all of which require some sort of external funding, which is limited. In the data age, demonstrating impact to funders is typically required before receiving any kind of financial backing. Often, the best way to achieve this is through metrics.

Consider an organization seeking funding to expand its nutrition and healthy eating workshops for teens. They could tell a handful of inspiring stories about youth who have participated in these workshops and enjoyed them, but that does not demonstrate that they are fulfilling a need. If, however, they were to introduce or punctuate these stories with the number of youths who noted an improvement in their cooking skills and ability to plan a nutritionally sound meal post-workshop, and demonstrate a high volume of inquiries about expanding the program from parents and interested youth in the community and beyond, they will have painted a picture of a successful, desired program that is filling a void within a population and has the metrics to prove it.

Essentially, data introduces scale, which can back up claims of effectiveness, impact, and need that narrative alone cannot. Its use within the context of nonprofit fund development is a key factor in taking a given initiative from an inspiring story worth a read to a successful operation worth supporting.

All forms of data, both qualitative and quantitative, can be helpful in this context. What matters most is how it complements and affirms the story being told. That said, certain types of data are particularly compelling to funders, notably, data demonstrating positive outcomes (e.g., growth, improvement, efficiency) and demographic data. The former because it communicates program effectiveness, the latter because funders, such as foundations and corporate philanthropic entities, often establish specific demographic niches they are interested in supporting through their funding.

An added benefit to incorporating data into funding proposals is the opportunity it creates for visual storytelling. Data visualizations, such as diagrams, maps, charts, and tables, can make data more engaging and accessible by conveying key information at a glance. While not always feasible—depending on the funder’s required format—visual representations can effectively communicate a range of metrics and statistics that might otherwise be cumbersome or less impactful when presented solely in text.

An infographic from OXFAM, titled “Let’s Talk About Hunger,” is a good example of compelling visual storytelling. It breaks down the language of food crises into five categories, in order of urgency, and uses pie charts and cleverly designed images to convey the level of scarcity experienced at each level. It is both visually appealing and highly informative. In the case of a funding proposal, even a simple set of graphics, appearing within the context of the greater narrative, can help bolster the legitimacy of the request. As this infographic illustrates, this approach can also be particularly effective when communicating urgency to funders.

So, how can this information help organizations secure funding? Here are three steps that can help incorporate data-driven storytelling into funding requests.

  1. Identify the Best Success Stories

These stories should highlight the significant impacts that an organization has made. For example, initiatives that assisted many people within the target demographic, a partnership with another organization that helped expand services, successful fundraising campaigns, and even events that garnered significant press coverage. What’s most important is that the story highlights how an organization is achieving its mission.

  1. Gather and Organize Relevant Data

Having robust data collection methods within an organization is key. Once data collection begins, it can be integrated into success stories as needed, strengthening them and making funding requests more persuasive overall. A baseline amount of data can help demonstrate the progress made over time, the impact of a given initiative, and more. More sophisticated data can be more compelling, but will require a more refined approach to integrating it into the narrative. If the data cannot be used effectively to bolster success stories, it may indicate the need to collect new types of data or employ a different data collection method. There will likely be some trial and error in this process, but the information and compiled data will make the endeavor worthwhile.

  1. Tailor Messaging for Different Funders

This might be the most crucial step. Even the most well-communicated, data-backed stories will not be of interest to a funder who does not fund what a particular organization is offering. Every funder has its own values and funding niches. Any request that does not align with those will be discarded on principle. The best approach is to have a clear understanding of what a potential funder supports and does not support, and to craft a funding request that clearly ties in mutual values. Once an organization establishes itself as a valid potential funding recipient, the data that is integrated into its narratives will help it stand out among the crowd.

Increasingly, nonprofit organizations are utilizing customer relationship management (CRM) software to facilitate documentation, data collection, and management. CRM software is often used to track donor information, but it can also help nonprofits keep tabs on what’s working—and who’s being helped. Although primarily used in the nonprofit sector for donor management, this software can also serve as a practical tool for tracking key metrics, such as participant data, survey responses, and other essential information. When thoughtfully implemented, they can significantly enhance a nonprofit’s data collection efforts. However, their effectiveness depends on the capabilities of the system itself, as well as how staff use the tools and how well they are integrated into the organization’s daily practices.

As a board member of a foundation once told me, every cause is a worthy one. Yet, especially in today’s funding landscape, no one cause speaks for itself. This is where many get stuck. We often overlook the fact that, despite a nonprofit’s obvious importance, many prospective funders are typically learning about a particular cause for the first time. Painting a vivid and inspiring picture of an organization’s achievements through data-driven storytelling instills faith in the legitimacy of a cause to potential supporters. It can be key to securing the financial backing it deserves.

Remember that you don’t have to work for a nonprofit to support one. Look for organizations that demonstrate both heart and results—those that tell real stories and share clear outcomes. Ask how your donation or time as a volunteer would make a difference, and support groups that answer with both passion and proof.

While no single nonprofit can solve every structural or systemic problem, together they serve as community pillars, with networks, knowledge, and resources that communities depend on and that are worth sustaining and expanding. A well-funded and well-managed nonprofit can make a meaningful impact. When many such organizations thrive—particularly grassroots initiatives created by and for the community—that impact grows exponentially. In this context, data-driven storytelling becomes a powerful tool to help a community understand and address its own needs.

How Student Loans Became America’s Financial Catastrophe

With the student debt crisis spiraling out of control, some media outlets have called it a “national emergency.” Outpacing most other borrowings by consumers, Americans who owed federal student loans more than doubled between 2000 and 2020, “from 21 million to 45 million, and the total amount they owed more than quadrupled from $387 billion to $1.8 trillion,” according to a 2024 article in Brookings.

A notable demographic shift has also emerged, with older borrowers now outnumbering younger ones, holding more debt despite having taken out smaller loans many years earlier. According to my analysis of the 2024 second quarter figures from the Department of Education, there are now 2.1 million more people over the age of 35 (23.7 million) with student loans than under the age of 35 (21.6 million), and they owe 160 percent more on average ($43,680 versus $27,250).

Approximately 5.3 million borrowers who had taken federal student loans are “in default,” states an April 2025 PBS article.

Improving access to education is integral to ensuring the economic success of any nation, leading to substantial returns in terms of salaries and gross domestic product. “When more individuals hold high-value credentials, workforce participation increases, financial security becomes attainable for more families, and economic growth accelerates. But these benefits won’t materialize without action. Federal and state governments must prioritize education funding, align learning with workforce needs, and reaffirm education as a public good,” according to an opinion piece in the nonprofit news publication, The 74.

Unlike the U.S., many other countries are prioritizing investing in education to support economic growth. If America doesn’t rectify its policies, which have led to “declining confidence in the value of a degree,” the situation could become irreparable in the future.

The Vicious Cycle That Has Made Education Inaccessible

Student loans were introduced to make education more accessible for students from low-income backgrounds, which would eventually lead to better job opportunities. Far from achieving this goal, the flawed loan system has been monetized by politicians and companies over the years, keeping students in an endless cycle of debt.

“A generation ago, Congress privatized a student loan program intended to give more Americans access to higher education. In its place, lawmakers created another profit center for Wall Street and a system of college finance that has fed the nation’s cycle of inequality. Step by step, Congress has enacted one law after another to make student debt the worst kind of debt for Americans—and the best kind for banks and debt collectors,” states ABC15 Arizona.

The consequences of this financial burden are severe and worsening, leading to tragedy in some instances, like in the case of the Nelson family from Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. They filed for bankruptcy in 2020 as their debt grew, “most of which was unpaid student loans,” according to the New York Post. The family, including six children, was found dead in 2022 in what was termed a “murder-suicide,” owing mainly to their financial circumstances.

The Ballooning Student Loan Debt

The student debt exceeds the state budget in most states (particularly Southern states), based on the first quarter 2025 data I analyzed. The increasing debt has resulted from a significant increase in borrowing and the cost of education over the years. The lending system, by all rational metrics, is a catastrophic failure.

Unfortunately, the political dynamics that have taken hold of both Congress and the White House over the past couple of decades—from both parties—have only solidified against student loan borrowers, perpetuating this broken and dangerous loan program. It is crucial that the public understand the history of how we arrived at this point, the current political and other dynamics at play, and, most importantly, how we can move away from the ledge we, as a nation, now find ourselves on.

How Sallie Mae Monopolized the Lending Industry

The debtor’s revolt in Western Massachusetts, which took place in the 1780s and came to be called “Shays’ Rebellion,” was believed to have compelled the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which called for uniform bankruptcy laws ahead of the power to raise an army, coin currency, and declare war in Article I, Section 8.

When President Lyndon Johnson came to power, he signed the Higher Education Act (HEA) into law in 1965. The HEA “created… guaranteed loan programs establishing that loans borrowed by students from private loan companies were now guaranteed by the federal government if students defaulted,” according to the Boston University website. During the signing ceremony, Johnson declared that the loans would be “free of interest,” pointing out that the act would ensure that “the path of knowledge is open to all… [who] have the determination to walk it.”

In 1972, a hybrid, public-private company, Student Loan Marketing Association, which was later called Sallie Mae, was established to serve as a repurchaser and guarantor for federal student loans made by private banks. The company had all the profit-making incentives of a private company, but also had the full backing of the U.S. Treasury, whose money it used for its operations. This created a monopoly over the nascent student loan industry, and the company became the de facto expert and driving force, along with Congress, on legislative matters.

“In the mid-1990s, skyrocketing demand for student loans prompted by escalating college tuitions, expanding eligibility for student loans, and a host of new types of lending combined to make the student loan industry infinitely more complex, larger, and more lucrative. And Sallie Mae emerged as the industry’s biggest player,” stated a 2007 report, “Leading Lady: Sallie Mae and the Origins of Today’s Student Loan Controversy.”

In 1976, bipartisan legislation—pushed by Sallie Mae and other related financial interests in Washington—was enacted by Congress, which made federal student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy for five years after the repayment period started, unless borrowers could show “undue hardship.” The reason given for this unprecedented removal of standard bankruptcy rights from student loans was that there was a crisis of graduates flocking to bankruptcy court in droves to expunge their debts.

According to a 2013 policy brief by the nonprofit Reason Foundation, however, “the narrative that students are routinely graduating from college with debt and immediately declaring bankruptcy after graduation was pushed by Sallie Mae and other student lending companies in the hopes that these measures would even further reduce the risk shouldered by lenders when issuing student loans.” The discharge rate of student loans in bankruptcy at that time turned out to be far less than 1 percent—lower than almost all other debts in bankruptcy court.

While a waiting period for bankruptcy discharge surely seemed inconsequential to most in Congress at the time, Sallie Mae was just getting started. In the ensuing years, this unique exception to discharge was extended to include loans made or insured by nonprofit companies. Then, the waiting period was extended to seven years in 1990.

In 1991, Sallie Mae (and the lending industry it essentially controlled) successfully convinced Congress to remove statutes of limitations from federal student loans. And in 1998, Sallie Mae and the student loan industry managed to end any “waiting period” for bankruptcy discharge with the passage of the Higher Education Amendments.

Policy Changes That Helped the Lending Industry Thrive

The number of loans made annually between 1990 and 2000 doubled from 4.5 million to 9.4 million, according to the American Council on Education 2001 brief. “This increase in student borrowing was fueled, in large part, by legislative changes enacted early in the decade.”

To keep up with the increasing demand, Sallie Mae went on an acquisitional drive, purchasing two of the largest student loan guarantors, USA Group and Southwest Student Services, in 2022, and also “went on to purchase the student loan collection companies, so that by 2006 it dominated all aspects of the student loan industry,” according to a 2010 article by World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). These companies generated most, if not all, of their revenue from collecting on defaulted student loans.

Sallie Mae eventually became a completely private company in 2004. “Sallie Mae’s moves to acquire numerous guarantee, origination, and collections companies under a single corporate banner had fundamentally altered the student loan marketplace and made Sallie Mae the undisputed leviathan of the student loan industry,” stated the Reason Foundation brief.

But Sallie Mae and the student loan industry weren’t finished. In 2005, they managed to convince Congress, after spending millions of dollars in lobbying, to end bankruptcy rights from all student loans—including those made by private lenders—as a part of the landmark bankruptcy bill, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. At the time, they argued that this would allow the industry to lend to more needy students. But this never happened. Instead, they began demanding cosigners (typically parents or grandparents) for nearly all of their private loans.

These were truly the “happy times” for the student loan industry. Sallie Mae’s stock price shot up. “In 2005, Sallie Mae was named by Fortune as the second most profitable company in the U.S. (Microsoft was 18th that year),” according to WSWS. The company’s CEO at the time, Albert Lord, was the “highest-paid CEO in Washington, D.C., that year.” He built his own private luxury 18-hole golf course.

By 2004, Lord even bragged to shareholders that the company was actually “writing checks” to the Treasury at the end of every year—a reference to the fact that the government was making a profit on defaulted student loans through Sallie Mae’s collection activities.

No lender makes a profit on defaulted student loans in any other lending industry. The fact that the federal government profits from defaulted loans is a defining hallmark of a predatory lending system, resulting from the removal of bankruptcy rights and statutes of limitations. It is even more true today for the Department of Education, as it now owns the loans outright, rather than the old-style lending model where it only guaranteed the loans.

How Politicians Supported the Growth of the Student Loan Industry

The federal student loan servicers (who were largely the lenders and guarantors under the older FFELP program)  can generate more revenue from defaulted loans than from those that remain in good standing through a program called “student loan rehabilitation,” where a defaulted borrower is coerced into making nine payments for 10 months and ultimately signs for a new, much larger loan. The private companies that facilitate these loan rehabilitations receive 16 percent of the value of the new loans, for instance, on a $50,000 defaulted loan that is rehabilitated into a new $100,000 loan, a $16,000 payment is made by the taxpayer to these companies. This, of course, gives the industry a perverted incentive to want loans to default.

Wall Street and Washington had found a way to make profits on a lending instrument: Remove all standard consumer protections, hyperinflate loan balances—including and especially through defaulting loans—and use collection powers that would “make a mobster envious,” as stated by Senator Elizabeth Warren, to extract the money from the borrowers and their families.

This is precisely the sort of lending tyranny that the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they called for uniform bankruptcy rights and equal protection under the law.

Under President Barack Obama, the lending program was nationalized, resulting in the Department of Education making and owning all new loans from July 2010 onward. While private companies like Sallie Mae did not like this change, they remained in the mix by both servicing healthy loans and collecting on defaulted student loans.

Disturbingly, because lending companies could now only make revenue through these two means—where rehabilitating defaults would be far more profitable for them than servicing loans—this only strengthened the perverted incentives these companies already had to frustrate, baffle, and bamboozle borrowers into default.

This change was clearly a boon for the Department of Education, which now stood to earn interest on the loans. Some of the profit was even used as an offset to pay for the Affordable Care Act. The federal government loved this new arrangement, as lending skyrocketed, leading to the accrual of interest.

It also became apparent that the Department of Education had no intention of fairly administering the lending program under Obama’s presidency. The various income-driven repayment (IDR) plans that were in place were run in ways that would lead to the disqualification of the overwhelming majority of borrowers. Between 2013 and 2014, the department found that an astonishing 57 percent of borrowers had “fallen out” of these programs for failing to verify their incomes—just one of many hurdles borrowers must overcome to receive the promised loan cancellation after 20–25 years of making payments.

The Department of Education also fought tooth and nail behind the scenes to keep bankruptcy rights away from student loans on Obama’s watch. They regularly submitted testimony to judges in bankruptcy cases and even micromanaged such cases directly or through contracted attorneys.

Despite the long-standing promise by Democrats to return bankruptcy rights to federal student loans (which they failed to do in 2008), the best we saw from President Obama was an order to “study” the feasibility of returning bankruptcy rights to the loans. There was no meaningful action on this front. During Obama’s two terms in office, nearly $1 trillion was added to the nation’s student debt tab, according to my analysis.

The Worsening of the Crisis

President Donald Trump’s first term in office was—with a couple of notable exceptions—a nightmare. He hired Betsy DeVos—who held stock in student loan collection companies—to be his secretary of education. DeVos ran the department in even worse faith than seen during Obama’s term. She was even threatened with possible prison time by a federal judge for violating “a court order to stop collecting loans from former students of a now-bankrupt for-profit college,” according to the online news publication Government Executive.

There were, however, a couple of surprising bright spots from Trump’s first term. First, he became the first president to cancel student loans broadly, and by executive order. He first did this in August 2019 when he canceled student loans for 25,000 disabled veterans. He did it for a second time for everyone when he first enacted the repayment pause at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This proved that the president can, indeed, cancel federal student loans by executive order. There were no lawsuits or controversies surrounding either of these actions.

Interestingly, it was these actions that compelled my group to start the petition in March 2020 to return bankruptcy rights to all student loans, igniting public conversation about canceling student loans by executive order. The petition quickly grew to hundreds of thousands of signatures and went viral in the mainstream media. Within six months, leading senators, including Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer, began making a similar call.

Joe Biden, who won the election in 2020, meanwhile, promised to both “eliminate” the student debt of people who went to public colleges and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), and also committed to restoring standard bankruptcy rights to student loans.

The feeble attempt that Biden made in 2023, however, toward fulfilling these promises was struck down by the Supreme Court. While most point to the obvious reasons—Republican attorneys general and their lawsuits—the key reason was opposition to it from leading Democrats.

Shortly after the 2020 election, Steven and Mary Swig, a billionaire San Francisco “power couple,” circulated a memo within Democratic circles declaring that the president could not cancel student loans by executive order.

Soon after, Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Susan Rice were parroting this memo, declaring that the president could not cancel the loans administratively. When the Supreme Court handed down its verdict, Chief Justice John Roberts actually quoted Pelosi in the majority opinion.

It seems like Biden himself wasn’t entirely behind this plan. He rejected a “$50,000 student loan forgiveness plan” shortly after the elections, according to ABC News, and the law that he attempted to use to justify the cancellation was “ill-fitting.”

The loans that were canceled during Biden’s term weren’t because of anything that Biden did or didn’t do. Instead, these were loans that were, by and large, supposed to have been canceled through existing rule or law, years or even decades ago. While Democrats often cited them as evidence of their concern for student loan borrowers, the fact remains that these cancellations were relatively small compared to the loan portfolio’s growth over four years.

On returning bankruptcy rights to student loans, the Biden administration did, indeed, stop “opposing” student loan borrowers in bankruptcy court, but the “new bankruptcy process” they put in its place effectively transferred the power to determine the case from the judges to the departments of Education and Justice. The process has proven to be an expensive joke on the borrowers, with only a few borrowers getting discharges. In fact, out of 450,000 student loan borrowers who have filed bankruptcy since the new process was implemented, only around 2,500 people (0.6 percent) have received partial relief.

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had a good bipartisan bill called the FRESH START Through Bankruptcy Act of 2021, which he introduced along with Republican Senator John Cornyn. It proposed making “federal student loans eligible for discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding ten years after the first loan payment comes due.” Leading Democrats, like Elizabeth Warren, however, refused to endorse the bill.

In 2025, Trump returned to the presidency, and the Republicans gained control of the White House, the House, and the Senate. He has promised to “eliminate” the Department of Education, and “return student loans to the states” (which is incredibly ambiguous). Trump has already gotten the go-ahead from the Supreme Court to dismantle the department.

In fact, the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill in July 2025 makes the situation worse for student borrowers. It reduces “the number of repayment plan options down to two from seven… [also] capping the amount individuals can borrow for higher education,” states CBS News. Critically, the bill eliminates the President’s ability to cancel loans by executive order and allows defaulted borrowers to rehabilitate their loans twice. This provision is tantamount to an economic death sentence for these borrowers, whose loans will default again around 80 percent of the time.

Both parties in Washington have joined hands in keeping this failed loan scam going. At this point, this is not just unwise, but also immoral. We are truly in uncharted territory here. Going forward, we can easily expect half of all student loan borrowers to wind up in default in the next few years. This is precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they called for uniform bankruptcy rights. The worsening of this situation is going to take a tremendous toll on millions of people.

We can take action to prevent this by compelling Congress and the president to restore the standard, constitutional bankruptcy rights that were removed in the first place. This will end the widespread abuse that we’ve seen, prevent the far greater financial and social harms that the lending industry is poised to inflict on the country (particularly in light of the passage of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” law in 2025, and, over time, should lead to more rational pricing and more sensible lending.

What Other Countries Are Doing to Ensure Access to Higher Education

As the U.S. lags in understanding the value of investing in public education, other nations have recognized the importance of an educated workforce to ensure a thriving economy.

In Norway and Sweden, higher education is “tuition-free,” which guarantees equitable access to learning. To prepare students to meet industry demands, Germany offers a dual apprenticeship system, which “integrates classroom learning with paid, on-the-job training, producing well-prepared graduates for industry demands,” according to The 74 opinion piece by Courtney Brown, vice president of impact and planning at Lumina Foundation. Denmark provides students with grants to support them financially.

Switzerland has a vocational education system that allows students to split their time between school and work in fields like health care, information technology, and advanced manufacturing. Singapore’s SkillsFuture program gives adults financial credits they can use to pursue short courses and certificates at any stage of their careers. In Finland, adults can attend publicly funded retraining programs to gain new skills when industries shift or disappear,” adds the May 2025 opinion piece.

The U.S. student loan crisis is not simply the result of rising tuition costs, but of decades of deliberate policy choices that transformed higher education from a public good into a profit engine for lenders, politicians, and corporations. The stripping of bankruptcy protections, the monopolization of the lending system by an unholy alliance of the Department of Education and its private financial partners, and the bipartisan complicity of Congress have entrenched borrowers in a cycle of debt with no escape, leaving millions in financial ruin and undermining confidence in the very value of a degree. Meanwhile, other nations are investing in free or low-cost education, apprenticeships, and lifelong learning as a foundation for economic growth and social equity. Unless the United States confronts this broken system head-on—by restoring basic consumer protections, reducing costs, and reaffirming education as a public good—the crisis will continue to deepen, threatening not only individual livelihoods but the country’s long-term economic stability.