[Since the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947, greenbelt nooses have ringed British cities, controlling, constricting and crushing their outward growth.](https://www.cityam.com/protecting-the-green-belt-is-not-about-the-environment-its-blinkered-self-interest/) Greenbelts are self-evidently harmful. For all of human history, when cities have grown, so have economies, societies and living standards, as well as, in some cases, civilisations and empires. But now, the average house in Britain costs more than ten times the average salary. Finding even a single room to rent in a flat-share has become a fierce Darwinian competition in the nation's capital. [4 million houses are missing from the British housing market.](https://www.centreforcities.org/publication/the-housebuilding-crisis/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20average%20European,homes%20a%20year%20is%20reached) Who would know that interfering with such a fundamental process of human development would have such dire effects? [Apparently not Clement Attlee](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/21/keir-starmer-labour-housebuilding-green-belts-new-towns), who, delirious on his own success, having beaten Britain's beloved wartime leader, Winston Churchill, in the 1945 general election, decided he would have a fun old time of it, ensuring a gradual, yet inevitable decline in Britain for many decades to come.

What might've been had greenbelts not strangled our cities' growth for the past seven decades? Tokyo, the largest city on Earth, continues to power a Japanese economy that might otherwise slowly capitulate to demographic collapse. Tokyo is, in truth, a combination of several large cities that grew into a formidable conurbation in a way that could only have happened in a greenbelt-less world. And what a world must that be. In Germany, the Rhine-Ruhr conurbation is a sprawling urban mass of many cities and towns that have coalesced into one of the most productive urban areas on Earth. The area is roughly equal in population to the area of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, and Leeds put together. What sort of Northern Powerhouse might've emerged had these cities been permitted to grow naturally?

> In a supposedly capitalist country, it does not make sense that there is a blanket ban on building. It is totalitarian.

These greenbelts are mutant- they are disgustingly supermassive tumours growing upon our cities- the beating hearts and the breathing lungs that give oxygen to our economy and society. [12.6% of England is given over to greenbelt land](https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FullGreenBeltreport_1.pdf); [around 2% of England is built on](https://mperryassociates.com/2022/11/16/buildings-in-britain/)- clearly, the government is worried about the wrong "blob". Even worse is that greenbelts aren't even that green. It ain't easy being green- and greenbelts fail entirely to be so. The greenbelt is a combination of scrubland, brownfield sites, golf courses, and intensively farmed monocultures- much more dark, satanic mills than green and pleasant land. And greenbelts are destructive to our society, much less preservative as many claim. The commandment to preserve is best served by allowing young people to live where they grew up, allowing communities to grow naturally, with children and grandchildren living in the same places. Instead, it's a 45-minute drive to visit Grandma- so you don't really get to see her all too often anymore.

How dare greenbelt advocates claim they strive to preserve?

How dare this be allowed to continue?

And it will continue.

![A patch of greenbelt land outside of Cardiff|1500x1000](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1687816896/post/green-belt_bxeola.jpg "Much of what we believe to be luscious green spaces are in fact overgrown scrublands which double up as local tipping sites.")

There seems to be no end in sight. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Only crowing environmentalists wailing about the need to preserve the habitats of creatures nobody has ever heard of. Centuries ago, the counties of Lincolnshire and Somerset were primarily made up of marsh and fenland. They were entirely drained over the centuries, and painstakingly, towns, cities and villages emerged from what was once swampland. 

Had modern environmentalists existed at the time, presumably, there would've been many tantrums — perhaps Just Stop Draining would've blocked Ye Olde Motorwaye, sitting hand in hand.

But the marshes and fens were drained. And we're still here. Nothing particularly disastrous happened. That favourite environmentalist catchphrase "ecosystem collapse" never emerged in reality, and a righteous fireball of green-fingered Thunbergian justice never did engulf the West Country and the East Midlands.

So let's abolish the green belt. Gone. No more. Concreted over. In a supposedly capitalist country, it does not make sense that there is a blanket ban on building. It is totalitarian. Developers should be allowed to build on it. They can be directed to build first on brownfield sites, farms and golf courses ([which make up 7% of London's greenbelt](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58331413)) — because there is enough poor quality greenbelt land that building on that first may be enough to rebalance supply and demand for housing.

Abolishing the greenbelt should not be met with fear — are you listening, people of Surrey? There will still be somewhere to walk the dog — and I'm sure you'll find a new golf club somewhere; you might just have to drive a bit further. But with that great hardship — and oh, how great that hardship is — comes so many benefits. Generations of families will be able to live together in the same communities. Young people will be able to move to cities for jobs and opportunities. Abolishing the Greenbelt will break the poisonous shackles that are killing Britain.

I, for one, cannot wait.

Finding even a single room to rent in a flatshare has become a fierce Darwinian competition in the nation's capital.

The Greenbelt has become a Green-noose

:style[The Greenbelt]{block="true" fontSize="98.5"} :style[has become a]{block="true" fontSize="102"} :style[Green-_noose_]{block="true" fontSize="108"}

It’s February in Oxford, and thousands of protestors have descended on the city. The streets are packed with placards stretching as far as the eye can see. Ostensibly, the protest is about the introduction of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs). But the words on those placards tell a different story — one that is much more complex. “Governments are lying to you,” says one, ambiguously. “Say NO to the new world order” shouts another. A third sign, accompanied by an image of intense, watchful eyes, declares: “The 15-minute WEF ghettos are not about climate, it’s tyrannical control!”

It isn’t just concerned residents who have turned up at this protest. It’s also a gathering of the disaffected and the sceptical. Stripped of all trust following the government’s shady decision-making during the pandemic, hundreds of people have turned to alternative online theories to make sense of what is happening in the world. Theories that create links between seemingly disparate ideas, from 5G and vaccines to 15-minute cities, low-traffic neighbourhoods and digital currencies.

A basic overview of the narrative goes something like this: a cabal of elites (most notably the WEF) is orchestrating global events to control the populace through Agenda 21 (now Agenda 30), an action plan of sustainable development goals set out by the United Nations, and The Great Reset, which is the WEF’s post-COVID economic recovery plan. Thus, COVID lockdowns paved the way for future climate lockdowns, which are being soft-launched using fifteen-minute cities… or so the story goes.

![Protesters gather in Oxford to fight back against 15-minute city plans, holding placards with the phrases "Say no to 15-min ghettos" and "H.M. Prison Oxford."|1500x1000](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1686166808/post/say_no_to_ghettos_frgfya.jpg "“Say NO to the new world order”, “H.M. Prison Oxford”, and “Say no to 15-min c̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ghettos” - Such protests erupted across towns and cities over fears of further impending control. Via [Benjamin Elliott, Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/dYaFgsoN30Q).")

Whether or not you put any stock in this theory, one thing is clear: the global pandemic created fertile ground for an overarching conspiracy narrative in which technological and scientific developments and restrictive climate policies become control mechanisms.

Prior to the pandemic, my friends would jokingly make references to 9/11 being an inside job or that the royals were responsible for Diana’s car crash. These were passing comments, bits of humour that nobody I knew took seriously. That’s what conspiracy theories were, at the time: ideas that only a tiny minority of people believed. Now it’s hard to escape them. So how exactly did we end up here?

The single biggest reason for the explosion of conspiracy theories is the government’s lack of transparency during the pandemic. It isn’t just that an unprecedented event took place; people needed a way to make sense of it. COVID authoritarianism and the systematic suppression of alternative viewpoints played into pre-existing anxieties, giving credence to ideas that most people would ordinarily have dismissed.

The World Health Organisation aptly deemed misinformation about COVID an “infodemic”. However, in its eyes and the eyes of the UK government at the time, misinformation was anything that didn’t fit the official narrative. Because it was, at the end of the day, a narrative people were being fed. Switch on your television, and you’d see a rolling death toll, not of people who had died *of* the virus, but of those who died *with* it — a distinction that the BBC and other news outlets often saw fit to gloss over, even though doing so resulted in a skewed understanding of the severity of the virus.

To many, the deliberate ramping up of fear during COVID was a betrayal. More than that, it led them to question: ‘Why?’ Why did Matt Hancock intend to “frighten the pants off [sic] everyone”, as we saw in his [leaked WhatsApp messages](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/project-fear-covid-lockdown-files-matt-hancock-whatsapp/)? Why was the phrase ‘follow the science’ manipulated so it could be deployed at any given opportunity to shut down questions when science is supposed to be about speculation: testing and re-testing a hypothesis, following the evidence and fostering debate rather than creating an echo chamber?

:::quote{type="whatsapp" authorId="0" authorName="Matt Hancock" direction="end" authorImageUrl="https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1686166706/post/matt_hancock_jdctee.jpg" date="11:17"}
We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain
:::

:::quote{type="whatsapp" authorId="0" direction="end" hasTail="false" date="11:17"}
but the complication with that Brexit is taking the top line
:::

:::quote{type="whatsapp" authorId="1" authorName="Damon Poole" direction="start" authorImageUrl="https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1686166706/post/damon_poole_b3q1z8.jpg" date="11:17"}
Yep that's what will get proper bahviour change
:::

:::quote{type="whatsapp" authorId="0" authorName="Matt Hancock" direction="end" authorImageUrl="https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1686166706/post/matt_hancock_jdctee.jpg" date="11:35"}
When do we deploy the new variant
:::

The Great Barrington Declaration is a prime example; most signatories were reputable scientists who argued against lockdown, proposing to shield the vulnerable instead. Had they been taken seriously, we might not now be facing the dire consequences of spending two and a half years trapped at home: a struggling economy, children years behind in their education, and record levels of mental illness. Currently, [twice as many claims are made each day for sickness benefits in the UK](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mental-health-an-anatomy-of-a-very-british-crisis/) than before the pandemic, and mental health is one of the biggest causes.

The problem is that the data was there all along: we knew very early that the virus predominantly affected those aged 80+ and was unlikely to cause serious illness in otherwise healthy young and middle-aged people. As is now the norm in Tory Britain, the young had to make sacrifices for the old. A startling number of people are languishing on NHS waiting lists as a result — how many will die before they are treated? Did the benefits outweigh the costs? These are the questions few in power asked at the time, but many people at home were thinking about them every day, looking for answers the government couldn’t — or wouldn’t — provide. In the absence of official explanations, some turned to conspiracy theories, fuelled by anger and betrayal.

It is alarming that the UK, a largely liberal society, fell so quickly into authoritarianism. Neighbours reported each other for minor rule breaches, and human beings were treated like walking biohazards. Thousands of pounds in fines were doled out, even though it later emerged that the politicians calling the shots were flagrantly breaking their own rules. At one point, we were permitted one outdoor exercise session a day. It sounds ludicrous because it was. In fact, it sounds like a remaking of Orwell’s *Nineteen Eighty-Four*, as conspiracy theorists are keen to point out. By reacting to COVID in a previously unimaginable way, the government created the ideal environment for conspiracies: one fuelled by fear, mistrust and betrayal.

::post[floatRight]{#covid-and-coercion-how-the-lockdown-narrative-abused-christian-morals}

Paradoxically, while many conspiracy theories are rooted in the notion of a ruling elite dictating the lives of ordinary people, believing in them is itself an act of control. Never were people less in control of their own lives than during COVID. However, feelings of helplessness have been building for a while now.

It’s no secret that life in the UK is getting worse. We’re poorer, and nothing seems to work; meanwhile, the richest in society are getting richer. This is the kernel of truth at the heart of the most prevalent conspiracies circulating today, and it’s part of the reason that the green agenda has become embroiled in so much controversy.

Since even before 2020, various green policies were implemented — like lockdowns — with no public vote. The 2030 ban on combustion engines is one example; more recently, Oxfordshire County Council’s fifteen-minute city plans and Sadiq Khan’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone have been introduced. We need to act to prevent climate change, but these policies are rarely accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis which takes into account the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people.

![A young protester holds up a sign about the “Plandemic” and other conspiracy theories|1952x1098](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1686171833/post/conspiracy_theories_comp_egjsh4.jpg "Protesters gather in Trafalgar Square, where the anti-lockdown sentiment breeds a rebellion against other forms of control. Via Getty Images.")

Those who buy into conspiracy theories often do so because they feel like their lives are being impacted by policies over which they have little to no say. They feel the world shrinking around them, their possibilities threatened by the demonisation of cars, planes and gas boilers. Policies legislating against the use of such things might not meet so much resistance if they had been thought through or set in an achievable timeframe — if electric cars were affordable and we had the technology to store energy at a large capacity when the wind doesn’t blow, for example.

The UK’s impressive progress in cutting emissions, which has seen a [20% reduction since 2010](http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions), is rarely discussed. Our successes are hardly ever highlighted; instead, the narrative is one of alarmism. Which leads people, again, to ask: why? There is a communication gap which the government has thus far failed to address. A greater level of consultation and debate is required; ordinary people need to feel empowered.

One lady wrote on Facebook,

:::quote
“I have a really simple litmus test for #15minutecities: What do they install first, new play parks, better transport and up to date amenities… or the cameras, barriers and restriction technology? There’s your answer as to what purpose they serve.”
:::

She has a point; imposing traffic restrictions before upgrading infrastructure looks bad, but it’s typical of the government’s approach to environmental issues. Targets and guidelines are set before we know if we can achieve them and rarely are the potentially negative impacts on the lives of ordinary people considered.

Ultimately, when people feel they lack agency in their own lives, resentment grows. Memories of the swift shift to authoritarianism during COVID will linger for many years. Pandora’s box has been opened, revealing the ugly truth: “That would never happen in our country” is something we can no longer say truthfully. The COVID inquiry looks set to gloss over the key question it should answer, which is whether our response was proportional, and it is doubtful whether politicians who acted immorally will be held accountable in a meaningful way.

The government hasn’t done enough to address the mistakes it made during the pandemic — that is at least partly why it is now seeing so much resistance to green policies, which also have the potential to restrict personal freedom, albeit in a much less severe way. Conspiracy theories will continue to proliferate unless people’s concerns are addressed and they feel listened to, not mocked and derided.

Stripped of all trust following the government's shady decision-making during the pandemic, some have turned to alternative theories to make sense of the world.

How COVID Made Us Conspiracy Theorists

I struggle to verbalise the current situation that we find ourselves in. We lack idols; we lack leaders or, more specifically, the right kind of leaders. We are at war with each other's ideologies that have no bearing on our lives. We're a generation of political pariahs, shoehorned into a fit that is
just a little too confining.

There is a vacuum of positive influence for young men at the moment, a lack of proper role models promoting themselves through our popular culture, a uniter is not the answer, but I am sick to death of dividers. Challenging leaders are good for our society, but dogma has replaced compromise, and with it, I watch the dying embers of a once politically active younger generation. These days, we need honest leaders who challenge very vocal minorities and stand up for a universal goal of improvement. Always pandering to small groups, no matter how marginalised, will alienate any pluralist society. The result is an inactive generation or one whose political actions become antagonistic and retaliatory.

:::alignblockquote{align=floatLeft}
I genuinely cannot think back to my childhood and pluck someone I wanted to be like when I grew up.
:::

The self-victimisation culture we have produced in our fight against oppression has paved the way for a sick revenge culture throughout high-level politics. All it takes is a quick glance across the pond to watch the constant bickering between outgoing and incumbent presidential administrations who aim to undo their predecessor's work. Oppression has turned into a bingo card for both sides of the political spectrum, with each eagerly waiting to label something a sly fascist move or dirty commie propaganda. Closer to home, Jeremy Corbyn is being forced to run independently so Labour can eschew the socialist banner from the party.

On the other hand, activists like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion exhaust me through their sheer ineffectiveness. Their message is getting overshadowed by their inability to pick effective targets. They are more interested in gaining screen time than achieving any positive progress. I read about Roger Hallam, the Extinction Rebellion co-founder, who uses XR as his personal affirmation factory, sauntering around their building like Colonel Kurtz. [Zion Lights](https://www.thefp.com/p/climate-activism-has-a-cult-problem) wrote about Hallam being the "leader of a cult", preying on guilt and anxiety by offering "salvation". The kind of extreme doom and gloom that manipulates the naiveté of a promising youth. As far as it goes, any figure willing to step into this mess and advocate moderation will face an uphill battle.

::youtubev2[Furious motorists clash with Just Stop Oil activists during a slow march protest;Just Stop Oil are renowned for blocking roads more than blocking legislation, and often create more outrage over their antics than support for their policies.]{#fW1vZEn6gGU;0}

It is not that I wish for idolatry; people worship too easily today. Imitations of strength and power. Imitations of support and charity. Those willing to either stoop to the lowest lows or imitate the highest of highs to feel a sense of achievement. I see no real leaders who inspire challenges, who inspire change. As it is, politics has often preyed on impending catastrophe, and it would be refreshing to see a challenge to this, a politician whose message isn't one of untimely doom and destruction but one of hope and promise. Identifying a positive stride forward seems to elude even the most seasoned politicians and activists.

Idolatry is an oversaturated market, just like the market for disdain. Hating people got old quickly. Is it getting old not having someone to look up to? Is it too late to have someone to look up to?

It's alien. I genuinely cannot think back to my childhood and pluck someone I wanted to be like when I grew up. Outside of close family members and fictional characters, I really struggle. Maybe I outgrew the necessity. Is the aimless direction of this generation due to the same problem?

::post{#i-am-fed-up-with-forever}

And our aimlessness is preyed upon by a reactive political culture. Like frenzied dogs, when someone knocks on the door, we await the next reason to publicly condemn a political event. As one dog barks, a chorus rings out, and the simultaneous unification of a generation gives credibility to some of the most significant social movements in the past five years. What is worse is that these movements didn't have an identifiable leader. Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, and the #MeToo movement. All work and all protest was done after a breaking point. It was not proactive at its roots; it was reactive. Dangerously so. George Floyd, Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein. It took a murder, an election and an outcry to kick a disjointed generation into gear. The cracks are beginning to show, and without a focal point, these movements eventually crumble. Moderation requires a voice, and there isn't one.

I remember being privy to a conversation over the "role of men" post-MeToo, and the general assessment was that the normal nervousness around women had been replaced by genuine fear. No one is to blame for such a development, but it happened. Intentions misread, actions exaggerated, and lives ruined.

I am sure many are familiar with that infamous Andrew Tate adage about women's clothing being responsible for them being raped or assaulted. The disaffected look up to Tate because he provides them with a place in society. He provides a place for young men who feel uncomfortable being powerless. Young men who have reached sexual, cultural and political maturity at a very politically sensitive time. Their first interaction with it is a whirlwind of accusations about all men being this and all men that. Imagine an aimless teenager being told, reassured even, that all the blame he is receiving was never his fault; that's powerful. Thus, the disaffection of a generation is dispelled by one man's vulgarity. A vulgarity that perks their ears like that of a curious dog in the night. These young men have been thrown a line which absolves them. The bait is tasty at first, but like any bait on a line, the fish is unaware of the consequences.

![Andrew Tate posing in a chair with his distinct scholar's cradle, wearing sunglasses|1500x900](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1687378495/post/tatef_nh5gou.jpg "Andrew Tate’s persona attracts young men who feel uncomfortable with their sense of powerlessness. His “Top G” mantra is a seeming inspiration to the disaffected. From [Twitter](https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1671407269089538048).")

But I am interested in who stands up as a uniter; it feels like a dark time when compliance is a necessity and conformity is encouraged. Dogmatic individuals who are unaware of what they stand for but will fight for it to the end. The catastrophists see every political development against them as the beginning of their own personal genocide. It would be exciting to find a leader who inspires people based on the quality of their ideas and not on their ability to raise fear of their opposition. I remember seeing Senator John McCain speak about Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. He was asked about Obama's background and birthplace and how he would ruin the country should he get into office. McCain simply assured the woman that should Obama get into office, he was sure he would be just as capable as McCain himself. Politics has lost its promise, and being forced to pick "the lesser of two evils" will continue this trend.

So now, at the advent of a new election cycle that will grip the news for the next 18 months, it is pertinent to reflect upon a world whose leaders struggle to inspire their newest troves of the electorate. Amidst an easily curatable outrage culture, there comes the chance to spread a new kind of election promise, one that can inspire healthy change throughout a country. A stark contrast to the "kill or be killed" nature that pervades high-level political institutions currently. The repetitive nature of fear-mongering leaders will only prove to stoke unnecessary tension in an already strained population. One man wandering out of the darkness to inspire the uninspired seems like an outrageous proclamation, and even if it does happen, would the uninspired tune in to listen?

There's a vacuum of positive influence for young men at the moment. A uniter is not the answer, but I am sick to death of dividers.

An ode to idolatry

:style[An ode to]{block="true" fontSize="100"} :style[idolatry]{block="true" fontSize="105"}

Some of my friends wake up at 9 o’clock, snooze their alarms, reach for their laptops, open Microsoft Teams, roll over, and fall back asleep. At eleven, they slip on business attire - top only though - for a meeting. The “meeting” takes place, but their cameras are off. One person does all the talking. Everyone is assigned a task, and the meeting adjourns for the day. There will be another such meeting tomorrow.

The meeting over, it’s back to bed, with laptop in tow, to play around with a few spreadsheets until there comes an acceptable time to stop (in my experience, lunchtime).

This, it seems, is the new working day.

The anecdotes that condemn working from home as a facade are endless. “I love working from home” I overheard one day, “it’s the only time I can get the *chores* done.”

Jake Berry MP drew heavy criticism for [tweeting a snide remark directed at striking Civil Servants](https://twitter.com/JakeBerry/status/1620740455444127746). The gist was that the occasion of the strike was the first time for a while that the strikers had visited their workplace.

::tweet{#1620740455444127746}

Responses ranged from the disappointed [“oh mate”](https://twitter.com/lukemcgee/status/1620770353965568000) to an analysis of the [benefits of working from home to the levelling-up mission](https://twitter.com/Mr_John_Oxley/status/1621056540202467328). It was safe to say that, besides the GB News-style commentariat, the tweet did not go down well.

But although criticising his own employees might not have been the most politically expedient thing to do, Mr Berry was absolutely right - and not only because, as a source in Whitehall told me, the strikers had tired of Victoria Street by 11am and had slunk off home. No, it is the plain fact that working from home is just not good, and especially for us young'uns.

I know and understand the arguments for remote working. Working from home has been heralded as a fresh dawn for new parents, as well as potentially a long-needed lease of life for commuter towns and rural villages.

Meanwhile companies are being told that working from home boosts productivity. They are screaming it from their steel-and-glass rooftops. More meetings are taking place! People are working longer hours! Less time is being spent commuting!

Plainly the cost-benefit analysis supports the work-from-home diktat, and companies are buying into it big time. No doubt McKinsey brainiacs have done the sums - let’s cut costs by selling the office space, they say, and, because they’re McKinsey, it really does appear a no-brainer.

All of this might be true, though I do know from my own experience with remote working that certain metrics might not be useful in this case. A work-from-home “meeting” might constitute any use of conference call software, where in the office it involved a chat between two desks, or a trip for coffee, or an idea shared over the water cooler.

But putting the statistics to one side, and as it’s all the rage these days, let’s think about ourselves for a second and about our *wellbeing*. Let’s turn to the fact that in this country we’re in the midst of a mental and physical health crisis. Let’s ask ourselves why it is that the levels of young people between 16 and 24 who say they are “always lonely” are increasing. Or what might be contributing to rising obesity levels across all age groups.

> Professional friendships? Gone. Company loyalty? Gone. Office Gossip? Gone. Office romance? Gone. Daily satisfaction? Gone.

At times we have to settle on the side of an argument for which the benefits are not easily calculable, but rather because they result in a world in which we would prefer to live.

I love going into the office; I might even go so far as to say that going to work is *fun*. I am more motivated when surrounded by people with whom I share a common goal. I like being able to chat about meaningless rubbish throughout the day. I like the fact that in an age of intrusive technology, my work life and my home life retains a measure of separation. I like the half an hour commute in which I am able to read a book. I like feeling like a valued person, with co-workers who care about me.

I do understand the attractions of working from home. 

So I draw the attention of my peers to an analogy that I believe will achieve some cut-through.

We can all agree that Dunder Mifflin was an awful company for which to work. Paper and office supplies is the most bland of industries. I know of nobody whose professional ambition was to conquer the office supplies market, as the leading expert on grams per square metre, perhaps, or the most persuasive paper salesperson in the country. I doubt that you do either.

That was the operational point of Dunder Mifflin in The Office (US). The inanity of working for such an uninspiring company informed and produced and indeed heightened the everyday beauty of the program.

But that didn’t make the existence of a company like Dunder Mifflin an object for ridicule. We *need* boring companies like that - the world needs office supplies and paper to function. There will always be Dunder Mifflins, and so we need people to work in them.

So can we imagine the success of the same company, or the same series, when operating with a remote work policy? Can we see, at all, why anybody would be drawn to working for Dunder Mifflin? No we cannot.

Professional friendships? Gone. Company loyalty? Gone. Office Gossip? Gone. Office romance? Gone. Daily satisfaction? Gone. All of the reasons why my descendants will watch The Office (US) with a sad nostalgia, should the Work From Home lobby steer their cost-benefit ship to its ultimate destination? All gone.

For the sake of your professional and personal satisfaction, I urge my peers to ditch working from home. Workers of Britain - *Come into the Offices*!

![A British World War II poster of a woman in factory overalls standing with her arms raised and looking up to the sky. The text reads: "Women of Britain, come into the factories. Ask at any employment exchange for advice and full details.|1200x773"](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1676279543/post/come_into_factories_comp_wgpvni.jpg "Workers of Britain - *Return to the Office*!")

Remote working is just not good, especially for us young'uns. Workers of Britain - Return to the Office!

The 'Working From Home' mistake

:style[The 'Working from Home']{block="true" fontSize="54%" lineHeight="1"} :style[Mistake]{block="true" fontSize="178%" lineHeight="1"}

In the book *Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More*, Alexei Yurchak focuses on the lived paradoxes in the Soviet Union before it collapsed. The knowledge that the system you have built your life around was failing but having the inability to imagine a way of life any different to your current reality. He termed this delusion, *hypernormalisation*. 

Cycling forward to the modern day it seems these paradoxes are rearing their heads once again. There is a pervasive mistrust in vast populations across the western world, across the entire political spectrum and in an array of contexts and institutions. It is paired with an inaction that seems to be completely antithetical to the individuals’ lived reality. Rent is sky-high, job prospects seem to demand impossible levels of experience or offer too little to be considered. Futures are bleak and the shadow of failure intensifies on a workforce that seems destined for a career in sales or recruitment. A workforce driven by graduates who commute from their childhood bedrooms.

In the Adam Curtis documentary on hypernormalisation, footage of a Soviet woman shows her being asked if she has a dream. She replies, “even if I had a dream, it wouldn’t come true.” It seems wrong to compare my future to the twilight of the Soviet Union. It is not the social or political reality that draws the comparison. There is a unique emotional zeitgeist present, a knowledge that there does not seem to be a wrong turn left to take. Yet, within the crumbling halls of power, there is a willingness to carry on and be blind to the failures of institutions that have carried us for decades. The deconstruction of established truths has exacerbated this. Truth has become increasingly difficult to define, it has become subjective to many and as such can I reasonably claim the western world has become delusional when such a claim relies on an established truth to deviate from? The lack of stability in the most basic of definitions is troubling. The power of a media that works in overdrive and a population too distracted to drive meaningful change will just continue to destabilise it further.

> Whether you buy into the conspiracy of our world becoming Orwellian is not important, it's the growing perception of an irreparable system that is concerning.

As I alluded to in my introduction, truth is being undermined across a variety of areas, especially after events as controversial as the COVID-19 pandemic and the revolving door of Tory leadership. Many trusted institutions have lost their constative voice, their ability to assert information as true or disregard some as false. Consistent criticism levelled at mainstream media by not only President Trump but also vast swathes of the public across the political spectrum has facilitated a growing distrust and desire for alternative truths. Very recently, the release of reports like the Twitter Files which detailed vast government involvement in how information was spread and received on the social media app has only incensed many who believe that our (online) reality is being manufactured by forces outside our control. Whether you buy into the vast conspiracy that our world is much more Orwellian than we are capable of understanding is not important, it is the growing perception of an irreparable system becoming the norm in people’s minds that is concerning. Should this belief take hold, there will be few well-equipped enough to provide an alternative to the current world system. Our descent into an era of despondency and pessimism could well be marking a new [“crisis of confidence”](https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercrisisofconfidence.htm).

![A near almost empty street in London during the COVID-19 pandemic. An elderly man wearing a face mask walks past a government-sponsored advertisement with the words "Coronavirus: bending the rules costs lives. Stick to the rules to stop the spread. Stay home. Protect the NHS. Save lives."](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1676893379/post/bending_rules_pfbubu.jpg "Many people may have continued to follow the COVID guidelines out of respect, but it embittered many when it was revealed the Tories disregarded their own guidelines.")

Yurchak wrote that the loss of an authoritative voice was key in undermining the Soviet Union’s ability to project itself as a successful nation, especially to its own citizens. Big sweeping promises of change are part and parcel of politics, but they act as an originator for disillusionment. I don’t doubt the authenticity of the calls for action but they tend to get watered down to nothing but the regular political schtick when challenged.

Take the Tory party themselves as an example, not only is there a massive mistrust in the government post-COVID but there is additional illegitimacy to the current Tory hold on power. There have been two unelected leaders placed in the premiership, one who was wildly unpopular and one who set his sights on the top job whilst serving as Chancellor. These developments are not unnatural nor rare in the UK political system, however the context in which they have come to power undermines their ability to impose their authority. How many people continued to follow the government-imposed guidelines after it was revealed that the Tories held parties and completely disregarded their own COVID guidelines? Their language and orders took on a completely performative function, going through the motions of a government with authority. Many people may have continued to follow the guidelines out of respect for the scores of healthcare workers who put themselves at risk, out of respect for family and friends, but personally it stung and I’m sure it embittered many.

Many people could not vent their frustration in protest personally, whether it be an inability to risk their jobs or general lack of will to become involved. So the culture turned from one of bitterness to one of disillusionment. A despondency in a societal system defined by its complete lack of accountability. Come the New Year, the calls for a general election are hardly at fever pitch but what I find most surprising is the complete lack of urgency given to UK politics. There was heavy attention when the Tory party was faltering spectacularly under Liz Truss, the excitement that came with the potential collapse of a government or more broadly, a potential change of system. Still, no change appeared and the disillusionment grows.

What is required to fix these issues I cannot personally say. Is a Reaganesque figure required to reignite the illusion of a country driven by its moral duty to the wider world? Where is our manifest destiny? Where are our *übermensch*?

![A poster depiciting an Übermensch-style character.](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1676722990/post/ubermenche_comp_c0yjkr.jpg "Friedrich Nietzsche created the concept of the *Übermensch*, an individual with remarkable capabilities and powers, in contrast to *The Last Man*, the antithesis of the *Übermensch* – a passive nihilist who is uninterested in taking risks and only desires comfort and security.")

I see no strong leaders standing up to the burden of carrying the country out of this depressive episode. So instead of the *übermensch*, I find myself drifting toward a separate Nietzschian philosophy, that of *The Last Man*. How long will it be, surrounded by all this disillusionment, until we begin to adopt it ourselves? Events like the 2008 financial crisis, countless leadership changes and a global pandemic have only manifested illusory change which will create a self-serving population. A population driven by their knowledge of a system unburdened by the rules it created. I look to my future and hope only for security and safety, my hunger for power collapsed in on itself by watching a government pat the resigning PM on the back and telling him “good job” after forcing him out of office. My life goals have become more McCandless than Machiavelli.

This constant awareness of failures of the “system”, whether they be judicial, economic or political is debilitating. It is not like there are no calls for change, there are millions. Instead, some in power seem to vigorously defend their way of life. I referenced Yurchak’s book title, *Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More*, which may be premature. There are no signs that our lived reality, the “system” or whatever phrase you would like to use to describe your life, is going anywhere. We are in the “everything was forever” portion. Forever just seems a little bit too long.

I see no strong leaders standing up to the burden of carrying the country out of this depressive episode.

I'm fed up with 'Forever'. Where's our Übermensch?

:color[I'm fed up with 'Forever'.]{color=lighter} Where's our Übermensch?

Friendship is an art that requires talent, time, and dedication. Sometimes it lasts a lifetime, sometimes not, but its importance lies in the extent to which it lives in us. In a society obsessed with romantic love and professional success - the perfect job, the ideal partner, the golden children, and the little house in the country - we easily forget the degree to which our close friends are fundamental components not only of the shaping of our individuality, but of our lives.

Two weeks after my mother died, a message appeared on her Messenger (we had not yet cancelled her accounts, which today is tantamount to officially writing you off as dead). One of her best friends from her twenties was writing to announce that she had finally retired and now had time to talk.

The idea that friendships become harder to maintain once you pass the thirties curve seems to be a fact. Life changes; we change. I recently asked a group of people whether they found it more complicated to maintain and make friends after 30; their answer was a resounding yes. Amidst work obligations, partners, family, and the twists and turns of life, it can be easy to lose track. By the time we realise it, our lives barely collide. Still, part of me cannot help but wonder, is it a lack of time or interest?

The web is littered with photos of friends toasting and articles about how social relationships affect our health. We know about the correlation between genetic traits and environment; that gazing into each other's eyes activates our brain's social network; that there is a higher rate of cardiovascular problems among people who feel lonely; that we are born to connect; that dementia worsens if a person is isolated; that our immune system declines when we are depressed and that prolonged levels of stress ages us. But we say little about the influence of friendship over our being and our lives.

I grew up in a family where friends were considered the family of choice. There would always seem to be someone having coffee in the kitchen. For my parents, friends didn't take up time; they filled the house with life. And although, as a child, I sometimes found it a drag when my parents' friends held me in the kitchen with the same endless stories, I am grateful they instilled in me the importance of those long evenings of food, wine, storytelling and political debates. And although we changed countries often, and they inevitably lost many of their friends along the way, they managed to keep in touch with most of those close to them. Preserving relationships was not only possible but essential. I am talking about a generation that grew up without the means of communication we have today. An international phone call would cost you an arm and a leg.

![Man sitting at a table alone](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1654429310/post/friends_table_gk7pkt.jpg "None of the post-covid hyper-connectivity seems to replace the power of presence. In the absence of body contact, relationships remain on the fringes of the intangible, the unreal and the immediate. Image adapted from Reddit.")

Throughout lockdown the scarce amount of communication I was having with some of my friends became obvious. Yes, we would look at our Instagram feeds and drop a "like" here and there, but we barely called each other. Given that we are the most digitised generation with the most access to media, and given that we were at home and were being spared the day-to-day commute to work, the lack of meaningful encounters no longer seemed to be a matter of lack of time. And while the pandemic brought us together in many ways, it also showed us the cracks in society. The elderly were already dying alone, and the so-called *epidemic of loneliness* was already raging. As for me and many others, it made me take a closer look at the nature of my relationships. If you don't call your friends when the world seems to be falling apart, when then? Is this hyper-connectivity in which we live giving us the illusion that we are connected when, in fact, there is no real connection? What does it mean to have meaningful relationships?

Because if the pandemic made one thing clear, it is that the hyper-connectivity in which we live did not save us from feeling lonely and isolated. Social media and platforms have allowed us to communicate; stay informed; work remotely; do yoga via YouTube; read books; connect with people from all over the world; listen to music, share millions of photos, links, articles, and videos; and binge-watch series and films -- and I will be forever grateful for this. Yet, none of this seems to replace the power of presence. In the absence of body contact, relationships remain on the fringes of the intangible, the unreal and the immediate.

As if in the dematerialisation of the world, our reality was slipping into fiction, preventing us from having more authentic relationships. Looking at our friends' lives through the pictures they post doesn't mean that we are part of it; More visibility does not imply a connection. And while social media is an incredible expansion of our relationship with others, we need physical contact. Not only because physical touch lowers stress and increases oxytocin, and God knows how many other hormones tied to love and our ability to bond. But because touch certifies our existence, it makes us real; it anchors us in the present moment. To quote Robin Dunbar: "There is an honesty about touch that cannot be matched by any other sense". Our body is a manifestation of who we are. We experience the world through our senses. And while you can tell a lot about a person by the way they write or speak, it is through the body that people communicate what they cannot articulate. It's how they move, their gestures, the silences, and their gaze that reveals the other person in all their complexity. You can control what you say in a chat, you can pretend, lie, and create fiction on Instagram, but you can't help but feel your body contract when someone you don't like touches you. Our body gives us away, and it is in that vulnerability where truth finds the space to grow.

It's what we experience together that binds us in a particular way. These shared spaces are built daily through different scenarios. The morning coffees, the shitty jobs we endured together, the fights, the half-paid rents, the books we shared, the synchronisation of our bodies as we danced, sang, walked, and explored new places together without knowing what would happen, the complicit exchanges of glances, the thousands of series we watched encrusted on the couch, all the meals, drinks and late-night talks, the losses and existential crises we navigated together.

![Friends taking pictures](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1654429310/post/friends_camera_o94hzs.jpg "In cycles of closeness and distance, I keep learning the fragile balance between holding tight and letting go. Friends who endure over time are like a piece of art built over a lifetime. Image: Halfpoint/Adobe.")

Friendships are built on a day-to-day basis and cemented in the rockiest moments. Getting to know each other takes time, breaking with the illusion of immediacy and reclaiming the beauty of being real. Having close ties involves more than going out to dinner from time to time, it's about being in each other's lives. When apathy or inertia dominates our relationships, we stop seeing one another and fall into blind spots. That is why making room for new friends throughout our lives is important, as they allow us to see ourselves through new eyes. As a gateway to new parts of us that are waiting to be born. We need to be able to keep those doors open.

Every friend is a piece of ourselves that claims us, and every friendship is the product of the unique combination of two people. Understanding friendship as a living bond means leaving room for change and opening it up to the possibility of further growth. In this exploration of who we are and what we create, when we are together, the other person becomes part of you.

As Aristotle said, a friend is another self.

We internalise our closest friends as well as our families of origin. Whether or not we have an ongoing relationship with them, they become part of us. And yet the prevailing narrative encourages us to expect less and less from our friends.

If the rise of the individual has given us the freedom to lead a life different from that set by society; it should also give us the freedom to recreate other forms of community beyond the established models that have nothing to do with our circumstances. As Johann Hari says in his book *Lost Connections,* the phrase ‘“nobody can help you except yourself” has been taken to such extremes and misinterpretations that it has become an easy way of simply not being there for other people’. And I couldn't agree more.

I suspect that the loss of community and the exacerbated focus on the couple as the only source of existential fulfilment is causing people to feel lonelier and more anxious. And although the degree of intimacy and love within a couple is higher and the commitment deeper, our close friends are also meaningful and intimate relationships.

> Our choice to show up at weddings as a family unit wasn't just a cute stunt. It was an extension of our political belief that friendship is a relationship that's equal in importance to romantic and family bonds.

As societies evolve, so do family dynamics and structures. The freedom to create another kind of family starts with claiming other forms of family units, whether they are homoparental or multinuclear, and challenging the idea that being single or childless means being alone. Not being in a couple does not mean not having other types of relationships or that such relationships are uncommitted. Two close friends who one day decide to live together and share expenses are indeed intertwining their lives. Is that not also a family? Living and sharing the intimacy of a home is part of building a solid and authentic relationship. Close friends are also love stories. To legitimise it is to redefine our way of loving and living. As Aminatou Sow and Anne Friedman say in their book *Big Friendship*, "Our choice to show up at weddings as a family unit wasn't just a cute stunt. It was an extension of our political belief that friendship is a relationship that's equal in importance to romantic and family bonds.".

Family units mirror the social structure. If you change the way families function, you pull the strings of society. Chosen families have not only allowed people to find space for belonging, but they have also allowed those spaces to have an impact on the world. From the coming together of women who became feminist movements to the LGTBQ community, where people expelled from their families of origin could find a space of inclusion, support and recognition. Or the immigrants who, finding themselves alone in another country, created networks of support and financial assistance with people who became family. Chosen families have certainly been a decisive hub.

Choosing a friend as a family is a conscious decision to be part of each other's lives. It involves being willing to embrace the challenges that will inevitably come and seeing the hard times as opportunities for growth and empowerment.

To take the time to connect and improve our relationships is to take responsibility for them. And, as in a long marriage where you repeatedly marry different versions of the same person, from time to time, we are pulled to step out of apathy and need to decide whether to keep choosing each other.

In cycles of closeness and distance, I keep learning the fragile balance between holding tight and letting go. Friends who endure over time are like a piece of art built over a lifetime. A testimony of our life together; our friendships have made the intangible visible and expanded our worlds. Together, we have explored the miracle of being alive and what it means to be human. We have made art into a way of life. In the words of a friend, they are our existential map.

Friendships after thirty seem to be harder to maintain. But is it due to lack of time or interest?

Where did all my friends go?

In 2019 Martin Scorsese the director of Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and Taxi Driver had the audacity to say that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) wasn’t really for him. So earth-shattering was the response to the idea that the then seventy-six-year-old, nine-time Academy Award for Best Director nominee had no intention of turning up to the midnight premiere of Avengers: Endgame, that Scorsese quickly had to write a defensive article explaining that he wasn’t meaning to demean the fans, the cast or the crew and that it was only his personal opinion that the MCU had more in common with theme park thrills than “*the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being*”.

It is unlikely that American critic, writer, political activist, philosopher and celebrated New York intellectual Susan Sontag would have given so respectful an explanation. Thirteen years before Iron Man launched the MCU, Sontag -an enthusiastic cinemagoer- had already announced the end of cinema’s life cycle. In her essay, A Century of Cinema, originally written for the Frankfurter Rundschau, and later abridged for The Times she argued that:

:::quote
While the point of a great film is now, more than ever, to be a one-of-a-kind achievement, the commercial cinema has settled for a policy of bloated, derivative film-making, a brazen combinatory or recombinatory art, in the hope of reproducing past successes. Cinema, once heralded as the art of the 20th century, seems now, as the century closes numerically, to be a decadent art.
:::

![A photograph of Susan Sontag in 1972 sat at her desk in front of a typewriter.|2480x1488](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1680640408/post/marvel_susan_suntag_i2hwbf.jpg "Susan Sontag (1933-2004) was an influential American writer, essayist, and cultural critic known for her diverse body of work. Photograph: Jean-Regis Rouston / Roger Viollet / Getty Images.")

Here Sontag makes clear that it’s not just that she found 1995 to be a worse year for movies than say, 1965. But that the whole industry had crawled towards a homogeneity whereby the only way to guarantee a profit was to ensure repetition. [The numbers](https://www.the-numbers.com/market/) would tend to agree with her.

### Top Grossing Movies in 1965

| Rank | Movie | 1965 Gross | Tickets Sold |
|-|:-|-:|-:|
| 1 | The Sound of Music | $163,214,286 | 161,598,302 |
| 2 | Doctor Zhivago | $111,721,913 | 110,615,755 |
| 3 | Thunderball | $63,600,000 | 62,970,297 |
| 4 | Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines | $31,111,111 | 30,803,080 |
| 5 | That Darn Cat! | $28,062,222 | 27,784,378 |
| 6 | The Great Race | $25,333,333 | 25,082,507 |
| 7 | Cat Ballou | $20,666,667 | 20,462,046 |
| 8 | What's New, Pussycat | $18,820,000 | 18,633,663 |
| 9 | Shenandoah | $17,268,889 | 17,097,909 |
| 10 | Von Ryan's Express | $17,111,111 | 16,941,694 |

### Top Grossing Movies in 1995

| Rank | Movie | 1995 Gross | Tickets Sold |
|-|:-|-:|-:|
| 1 | Batman Forever | $184,031,112 | 42,306,002 |
| 2 | Apollo | $172,036,360 | 39,548,588 |
| 3 | Toy Story | $150,004,917 | 34,483,888 |
| 4 | Pocahontas | $141,551,246 | 32,540,516 |
| 5 | Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls | $104,371,496 | 23,993,447 |
| 6 | Casper | $100,328,194 | 23,063,952 |
| 7 | Die Hard: With a Vengeance | $100,012,499 | 22,991,379 |
| 8 | Goldeneye | $93,662,146 | 21,531,527 |
| 9 | Crimson Tide | $91,387,195 | 21,008,550 |
| 10 | Waterworld | $88,246,220 | 20,286,487 |

### Top Grossing Movies in 2022

| Rank | Movie | 2022 Gross | Tickets Sold |
|-|:-|-:|-:|
| 1 | Top Gun: Maverick | $718,732,821 | 68,778,260 |
| 2 | Black Panther: Wakanda Forever | $438,291,367 | 41,941,757 |
| 3 | Avatar: The Way of Water | $425,527,069 | 40,720,293 |
| 4	| Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness	| $411,331,607 | 44,856,227 |
| 5	| Jurassic World: Dominion | $376,851,080 | 41,096,083 |
| 6	| Minions: The Rise of Gru | $369,695,210	| 40,315,726 |
| 7	| The Batman | $369,345,583 | 40,277,599 |
| 8	| Thor: Love and Thunder | $343,256,830 | 37,432,587 |
| 9	| Spider-Man: No Way Home	| $241,130,301 | 23,074,670 |
| 10 | Sonic the Hedgehog | $190,872,904 | 18,265,350 |

As prescient as Sontag was regarding Hollywood and indeed capitalism’s devolution into cannibalism and dependency on sequels, franchises, and reboots, even she would have been amazed by the size of the great Marvel cinematic ouroboros. Since 2007 there have been thirty-one Marvel films with eleven more in development, for comparison it has taken James Bond sixty-one years to make twenty-seven films. On average that’s a new Bond film released every two and a quarter years, and a Marvel movie released every six months.

How does a franchise this hulking stay intact? Well, the increasing frequency of the term “superhero fatigue” would imply that audience interest is disintegrating like Bruce Banner’s shirt. But this has less to do with the colossal scale of the MCU and more to do with the inherent blandness required to keep it all together. Marvel Studios -like all movie studios- know that they need to make it as easy as possible for any member of the public to see one of their movies. This means that despite the thirty-one films and the immense amount of goings-on, they need to keep the world-building as simple as possible. There should be absolutely nothing preventing anyone from seeing a Marvel movie, including knowledge of any of the events or characters within the MCU.

This leads to what Sontag derides as “*bloated, derivative film-making [a] brazen combinatory or recombinatory art*”. The easiest way to cobble together a Marvel movie is to stuff it with things the audience already knows. Characters are bland, interchangeable, quip-throwers. Big-name actors appear in cameos to break down the fourth wall and switch on the audience’s dopamine producers through the power of recognition. Then characters from other Marvel films will appear, substituting movie magic for a “Look! It’s them!” moment. They’ll engage in plastic banter that would fit perfectly into any franchise instalment. To borrow an analogy more often associated with computing: this is not a bug, it’s a feature. Every element of these films is designed to be as smooth and as homogenous as possible so that no single element upsets the MCU as a whole. That’s why the dialogue follows the same structure; scripts follow the same template; why the music, lighting and cinematography is bland so that nothing can possibly be mistaken as an outlier.

![Marvel's Phase Four had 10 movies and shows that launched in 2021, as announced by Kevin Feige at San Diego Comic-Con 2019.|2800x1724](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1680640408/post/marvel_phase_4_stage_qbmzm6.jpg "The Marvel Cinematic Universe has 'phases' that organise and plan storylines with interconnected movies and shows. 'Phase Five' began with *Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania*, released to poor critical reception in February 2023. Photograph: Kevin Winter / Getty Images.")

Sontag writes that “*the point of a great film is […] to be a one-of-a-kind achievement*”. But it is a much sounder monetary policy to instead try and replicate an already existing achievement, and Marvel Studios knows this. If Kevin Feige has any kind of mission statement taped to his office wall, it won’t be Sontag’s “*If cinema can be resurrected, it will only be through the birth of a new kind of cine-love*”. Instead it will be half-legend/half-maniac 80’s producer Don Simpson’s corporate philosophy memo from his time working for Paramount:

:::quote{type="quote"}
The pursuit of making money is the only reason to make movies. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art... Our obligation is to make money, and to make money it may be necessary to make history, art or some significant statement.
:::

The saddest part of Sontag’s predictions about the “*hyper-industrial*” cinematic industry was that even the “*astonishingly witless [films would…] fail resoundingly to appeal to their cynically targeted audiences*”. “Resoundingly” might be a Mister Fantastic stretch for now but she was not far off. Increasingly the MCU has failed to appeal to their core demographic: MCU fans. Letterboxd -the social media site for cinephiles- top reviews of the latest Marvel film *Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania* include:

:::quote{type="review" authorName="ash" url="https://letterboxd.com/ashmatxx/film/ant-man-and-the-wasp-quantumania/"}
This is one of the worst looking films I have ever seen, even by Marvel standards.
:::

:::quote{type="review" authorName="Angie Han" url="https://letterboxd.com/ajhan/film/ant-man-and-the-wasp-quantumania/1/"}
do they know cinema is a visual medium
:::

The visual effects have been widely panned but what seems to have cut to the core of the fan base is that these films just aren’t fun anymore. Even the most devoted of acolytes left the cinema disappointed that the film was in effect, just a trailer for the next film, setting up yet another world of weightless, consequence-less, contentless, mush.

![A scene from Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. Ant-Man (left) speaks to Kang the Conqueror (right).|2560x1440](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1680640408/post/marvel_antman_quantumania_cwchwv.jpg "*Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania* launched Marvel's Phase Five with disappointing reviews. Devoted fans left the cinema disheartened believing it to be a mere setup for the next movie.")

Sontag was a snob, some would go as far as saying she was a monster. But she was a snob about art because she knew art was important. She knew the value of aesthetic entertainment. She did screen tests for Warhol and wrote essays “Against Interpretation” and “On Camp”. She understood that art should be revelatory and would have hated how the only thing Marvel (and indeed cinema) has to offer is Stockholm syndrome.

“A Century of Cinema” was Sontag’s final word on the movies. So disheartened was she by the industry, she stopped writing about what was once her passion. And yet, she kept going to the movies. She could never bare to watch them at home and decried that half the movie experience was sitting intimately in the dark with strangers; being “kidnapped” by the movie, “surrender[ing]” to it; sharing this experience. Yet it is reported that “At the end of her life, working hard, and often ill, Susan Sontag went to the movies almost every day of the week”. She may have publicly turned her back on the whole enterprise, but she never truly lost hope. She knew there was something better out there, a small film, a foreign-language film, an independent film. As more and more people begin to resist Marvel’s chokehold on cinema perhaps, they would benefit from doing what Sontag did and venturing out in search of something new, something they have truly never seen before.

The increasing frequency of the term “superhero fatigue” implies that audience interest is disintegrating like Bruce Banner’s shirt.

How the MCU became the McDonald's of cinema

As a woman, you’ve probably always assumed that having your eggs frozen would be the best way to guarantee you could start a family in the future when you felt ready. I wouldn’t blame you for thinking that, because it’s how it’s historically been sold to us. But unfortunately, we’ve been misled not only about the success rate of egg freezing, but its financial and physical tolls. The worst part? Clinics are now setting their sights on teenagers.

To understand why they would want to target women from such a young age, I’m going to draw on facts The Guardian uncovered, *[Should you freeze your eggs](https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2022/dec/13/should-you-freeze-your-eggs)?* Last year the UK’s fertility regulator called for an update to the law around egg freezing. This in itself is a major cause for concern. It shows that, although they might not be the majority, there are too many clinics deceiving women about the egg-freezing process. It seems that they don’t want to tell women about the risks or the low success rates, for fear that they’ll decide not to go through with it. For the clinic, that would mean no cash. It’s shocking, but the sad truth is some clinics and doctors are money hungry. Of course, there are many amazing doctors out there who really care about their patients and provide them with all the accurate information. But there are too many who aren’t like this, and that’s the problem.

Dr Zeynep Gurtin explained some of her findings from an academic analysis about how clinics advertised egg freezing in targeted ads and websites. Although conducted a couple of years ago, her findings are shocking nonetheless. She discovered that clinics tended to promote the benefits of egg freezing much more than the potential risks and downsides. One clinic even claimed on their website that they had an 85% success rate, [when in reality it’s around 18%](https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-press-releases/2018-news-and-press-releases/press-release-age-is-the-key-factor-for-egg-freezing-success-says-new-hfea-report-as-overall-treatment-numbers-remain-low/)), though it depends on the woman’s age. When she and her team printed their findings and presented them to that clinic, they quickly took the claim down from their website. That shows that had they not been confronted, the clinic would’ve probably carried on promoting an extremely misleading figure to women. Women who, by the way, are already in a vulnerable position. Worrying about whether they’ll be able to have children can cause a lot of stress and with that comes desperation. They want a solution to their problems and with egg freezing being promoted as an insurance policy, it’s no wonder so many women are undertaking it.

But the reality is that only 1 in 5 women who have retrieved their frozen eggs have successfully gone on to become mothers. Sadly, the success rate is so low because of the process that happens when the eggs are thawed and fertilised. This is the part that no one really talks about because we’ve been sold the idea that every frozen egg has the potential to become a baby, which is simply not true.

![A liquid nitrogen bank containing sperm and egg samples|2000x1333](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1679344485/post/egg_freezing_process_comp_ecpqdv.jpg "The egg-freezing treatment typically spans over four weeks and involves the process of ovarian stimulation to prepare the ovaries for egg collection. The harvested mature eggs are then cooled to below-zero temperatures for fertility preservation and later thawing.")

Up until September 2021, a woman’s frozen eggs could only be kept in storage for up to 10 years. Then this rule was changed to allow women more time to make a decision about what they wanted to do with them. [Now, you can continually add an extra 10 years up until 55 years](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/06/women-will-able-freeze-eggs-55-years/). It’s a great achievement for the women who campaigned for this change, because having only 10 years to decide what to do with your frozen eggs is unfair, considering that by that point the woman may only be in her thirties or forties. Maybe she wants to be a mum in her fifties, or maybe she still isn’t in the position in life she thought she’d be to welcome a child. But either way, women deserve all the time they need to think about whether to have a baby, because it’s a life-changing decision.

But the extra time women can now leave their eggs in storage for is likely to be the reason that some clinics are now targeting teenagers with ads on Instagram. A woman is considered at her most fertile [between the age of 18 and 24](https://www.healthline.com/health/fertility-timeline#Ages-18-to-24). This means clinics can use that figure to their advantage and prey on young women’s worries about the declining quality and quantity of her eggs as she ages. In theory, a teenager having her eggs frozen while they’re at their prime sounds great, especially as she has up to 55 years to decide what to do with them. But they might not understand [the physical and emotional repercussions, much less the financial ones](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/08/warning-for-uk-women-over-physical-and-financial-toll-of-egg-freezing) of the fertility treatment. For some, when the costs of every step of the egg-freezing process are put together, their bank balance can take a hit of £30,000. I doubt many teenagers would be able to afford it, but who’s to say they wouldn’t take out credit cards and loans? It’s despicable that clinics are preying on their naivety and it makes me wonder why there isn’t a minimum age at which they are allowed to advertise their services - 21 perhaps.

![An Instagram post by @londoneggbank making the statement: "Why the best time to freeze your eggs is before your 30s."|1200x773](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1679344518/post/eggs_image_jti3yi.jpg "Instagram advertisements and posts capitalise on the anxieties of young women regarding their reproductive health deteriorating with age, while promoting their own fertility treatment and egg-freezing packages.")

Speaking of the physical repercussions, one of the main ones is the toll that the hormones you’d have to take have on your body. Once a person decides to undergo freezing their eggs, they have to inject themselves with hormones for around 10 to 12 days ([it can differ from person to person](https://www.healthline.com/health/egg-freezing-process#timeline)). This helps to increase the number of follicles, and therefore eggs, that are produced. The more eggs that are produced, the more likely the doctor will be able to retrieve a few healthy ones. The influx of hormones can understandably cause everything from mood swings to bloating. Everyone is affected differently, but it’s important to understand the physical repercussions before deciding if egg freezing is right for you, because unfortunately some doctors won’t go into detail about this for fear of scaring you off. But once you’re fully informed, you might decide you still want to do it, but at some point in the future instead, especially considering how it might affect you being able to work or study in those 10-12 days.

You’ll also have to have a transvaginal ultrasound so that the doctor can assess how many follicles you have before undergoing treatment. The hormones will boost this number, but the doctor will give you a rough number he expects it will rise to. Once you have an adequate number of follicles, you’re put to sleep under a general anaesthetic and a transvaginal probe with a needle will be inserted. The eggs collected are instantly flash-frozen and the whole procedure roughly takes 10-20 minutes. When you wake up, the doctor will inform you of how many eggs they managed to retrieve. Then, the eggs are put into ‘storage’ ready for when or if you decide to use them. This by the way, incurs a monthly cost. I don’t know about you but at this point I’d start to feel like a cash cow, constantly having to pump out money. Storage? I’m freezing my follicles not moving house. It’s a bizarre concept, but of course just another way for clinics to have a constant flow of income.

If you eventually decide to have your eggs thawed, you have to hope you’ll get at least one healthy fertilised egg, which in most cases sadly doesn’t happen. Again, this is something that some clinics don’t warn women about, and it’s horrifying to think people are being put through a physically and emotionally taxing process all potentially for nothing. Out of the several eggs that were frozen, there may only be a couple who take well to being fertilised once they’re met with the sperm from your partner, or the donor that you chose. The fertilised eggs are then genetically tested to screen for defects and then, if you’re lucky, you’ll end up with at least one healthy embryo.

Overall, you’ve potentially spent thousands of pounds and after all the probes, scans and tests you may not come away with a baby. This isn’t to put you off egg freezing if it’s something you’re interested in, but as [Alexandra from The Guardian interview put it](https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2022/dec/13/should-you-freeze-your-eggs), “You’re paying for the chance to have a child.” It’s good to be aware that egg freezing is not the guarantee that so many clinics and doctors may tell you it is. Only once you’re fully informed can you feel empowered to make such a potentially life-changing decision.

Let’s take back control of what happens to our bodies and probe the doctors first about what egg freezing entails, before they start probing us. We deserve clear answers and that’s what we should get once an update to the law around egg freezing has been made. It’s great to see the UK’s fertility regulator is on our side, showing that we refuse to be duped any longer about decisions concerning our bodies. I personally think a well-informed woman is a powerful one, and that’s our way of fighting back.

Egg freezing can be a long, costly, and emotionally taxing process, with no guarantee of a baby. Are clinics giving you all the facts?

Freezing your eggs is not an insurance policy for children

Meeting up with a childhood friend is always weird and strange because it’s like meeting a younger version of you. The younger versions of Chloe and I went to the same schools through primary to college, and split off for University. Younger Chloe loved pink and romance books and traditionally feminine things, and younger me had a blue bedroom and short hair like a boy’s and loved action films. 21-year-old Chloe is beautifully bare-faced and has amazing blue-green hair and is about to begin her Master’s in the Lake District doing outdoor activities and hiking. 21-year-old Melita (that’s me) sits in makeup and a carefully cultivated outfit, writes for a living and adores her femininity. I like pink, and I love clothes, makeup and perfume. But there’s always been one huge difference in my mind that’s never changed; I am fat and she is not, and that will not ever change.

So 21-year-old Chloe and Melita sit down for cocktails and a catch-up, and she tells me “*You look like you’ve come into yourself. You look confident. It suits you.*” The statement confuses me; I’m still fat. I was under the impression that because I am a fat woman, I can’t ever come into myself. I’ll never look confident except if I wear something showing more than the socially acceptable slither of skin for fat people (I hear ‘I wish I had your confidence!’ in my nightmares) and I’ll never look comfortable, because how can a fat person be comfortable? God, look at her, can’t she go to the gym? And then that one simple comment sends me into a confused period of questioning my whole self-perception. I wrote my dissertation on how my life has been shaped by my position as a fat female, and I thought I had it figured out. I was working on the logic that fat isn’t a choice and that I had to just suck up and deal with it because I won’t look the same way forever but I’ll always be fat so what does it matter? If I can’t ever love myself I’ll pour all of the love left behind into supporting the people who look and feel like me.

The first part is true; fat isn’t a choice. Fat people are demonised to the extent that I couldn’t even eat in public. It’s a pretty common experience for fat and plus-size people, going out in public and then scoffing our faces the moment we close our doors in shame. I used to do that, and that wasn’t my fault. God forbid the fat girl eats during her busy day to stay alive, so I’d starve all day and binge once I got home to ‘protect’ people’s perception of me. I was putting people first constantly, even above my health. Society and the media ‘[tend to dramatize, moralize, and individualize body weight, particularly when referring to higher weights](https://read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/article-abstract/30/5/869/83346/Weighing-Both-Sides-Morality-Mortality-and-Framing)’ and all plus-size people are aware of it, so we hide ourselves in baggy clothes and don’t eat, and once some of us are done binging, we make ourselves sick and repeat it all over again. That was my life, and I was smaller then, a size 14. I’m a size 16 now (the literal average size, mind you) and although I’m bigger, I eat a lot healthier. I’m happier. I’m stable. I make chicken alfredo, a meal I always wanted to try but never dared to because of the calories in the cream, and allow myself to have the same sugary cocktails as my friends. I didn’t have these things for years at all and tried to lose weight and I was miserable. Funnily enough, I hated vegetables back then because I refused to use oil or butter or garlic or anything that would make it taste flavourful, so I tried not to eat anything at all. Now I fry them up with butter and garlic and eat spinach with my eggs, peppers, baby corn and mangetout with my chicken. It’s healthier. I’m healthier, and I’m bigger, but who cares? I go back to that old almond mom saying - ‘a moment on the lips, forever on the hips’ and - come on. If we all say that every time, then none of us would eat anything good at all.

So I go back to Chloe telling me that I look confident, and go even further back to the Melita she knew in college, the 17-year-old who couldn’t wear white and hated tucking her shirts in case someone paid too much attention to the curve of her stomach. It overthrows every notion that I’ve had firmly planted in my brain since I was young and first dreamed of cutting my fat off with scissors. And sure, I still panic and turn to the side and stare at the slope of my stomach, but I shrug it off and put on bolder clothes and a tighter dress and let my friends talk me into buying the food I want in a restaurant. I look at Chloe, and I see her for who she is, someone who’s inevitably been through things and grown in the time we haven’t seen each other - and I look at myself in the mirror when I get home. Sure enough, there’s a line of ease in my shoulders and a sense of contentment in my face, and I’m not sure when it got there. I’ve healed and recovered and bettered myself without losing weight. Maybe one day I will lose weight, maybe I’ll gain more. But what I do is between me, my doctors, and my friends, so I suppose being content as a fat person isn’t impossible. I hope all people who feel like me, who look like me, find that ease and contentment with themselves without causing any harm to themselves, because it is possible. It’s always been possible.

Feeling ease and contentment as a plus-size person doesn't have to mean losing weight.

Yes, I'm a plus size person. And that's okay.

Yes, I'm a plus size person. :color[And that's okay.]{color=#2CF5D0}

I half-promise to improve my diet every other week. Guilt-ridden by the latest spate of takeaways or a hearty roast dinner, I’m prone to proudly rustle up a colourful salad, only to return - appetite unsatisfied - to the biscuit cupboard a few hours later. It doesn’t help that food culture is a minefield of mixed messages. To diet, or to Deliveroo? A 2017 BMJ study found that [nearly 30 times as much money](https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4677) is devoted to junk food advertising than the UK government spends promoting healthy products. Meanwhile, many individuals swear by supplements as miracle cures, alongside a telephone directory of 5:2, keto, and paleo diets. One can even pay $10,000 for an 11-night cleansing and detox yoga retreat in Thailand, with the option of a pure water fast to eliminate ["negativities and pollutants"](https://phanganist.com/thailand-travel-guide-yoga-healing-article/fasting-retreats-thailand-detox-and-weight-loss).

Such unsustainable, pseudo-scientific nonsense fuels disordered eating and has multinational conglomerates rubbing their hands together with glee. The 10 largest food companies made profits in excess of $100 billion in 2018 by pumping their products full of chemical stimulants to leave us hungry for more. It is by design that [over two-thirds of American adults](https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html), and [64% of their British counterparts](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03336/SN03336.pdf), are medically overweight or obese. At the other end of the scale, the NHS Confederation reported last year that referrals for children with eating disorders were ["through the roof"](https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/mental-health/number-of-children-needing-eating-disorder-support-through-the-roof-30-05-2022/). How do young people, trapped in a social media comparison bubble, even begin to make healthy diet choices?

The answer - to coin a phrase - is *education*, *education*, *education*. Fallacies about fat, vitamins, food labelling, and even exercise have been exposed by recent scientific breakthroughs. Several weeks ago, sleep-deprived after an evening of heavy snacking and the acute nocturnal indigestion that followed, I listened to a podcast with the nutrition expert, Professor Tim Spector. As co-founder of the [ZOE food study](https://joinzoe.com/), his day job is to myth-bust the "dangerously inaccurate" information that comprises much-established wisdom about nutrition. Spector explains how the composition of our gut microbiome - the collective term for the microbes that inhabit our digestive tracts - influences everything from short-term energy levels to longer-term indicators like sleep quality and mood. The problem is that much government and even NHS advice is struggling to keep up with this rapidly accelerating science.

To take one prominent example, we are surrounded by calories: from “traffic light” indicators on packaged foodstuffs to the newly-introduced counts on British restaurant menus. But the fact is, as Spector elucidates in his excellent book *Spoon-Fed*, that a calorie is a meaningless indicator of what health benefit a foodstuff will give someone. Myopic focus on the calorie feeds into our yearning for control but is illogical when applied to actual people. A woman of 6 foot will be told she needs 2000 calories a day, while a man of 5 foot 6 is advised to eat 2500. Go figure. “Recommended Daily Allowances” neatly classify sugars, fats and salt as if these are monolithic categories worth measuring. But a quick comparison between an ultra-processed if allegedly “low fat” American diet of ready meals and Diet Coke, versus a Mediterranean offering rich in oils, breads, cheeses and red wine, confirms these are poor indicators of health and quality of life.

![The “traffic light” indicators on a packaged food item. |644x508](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1678096529/post/food_traffic_light_comp_ojqlzm.png "It’s time to dispense with meaningless “daily allowances” to take account of individual needs. Source: Getty Images.")

Beyond calories, further research has transformed my attitude toward several foods and practices. I have often guiltily eschewed breakfast, only to find that food science is far more forgiving of personal preferences than the “most important meal” mantra. The important thing is to restrict meals to a 12-hour period - say 8am to 8pm - to allow your gut to rest and recover as you would any other major organ. Spector discards another cardinal rule in “five fruits and vegetables a day”, replacing this with “as many as you can manage”. We should aim for a diet rich in vegetables, seeds, nuts, spices and fruits of all colours, since they are rich in polyphenols. These “good” bacteria stimulate the gut microbiome into an intricate tapestry. The same is true of probiotics: fermented foods like yoghurts, kombuchas and sauerkraut.

To boost polyphenols we must avoid “ultra-processed” foods. You can spot these from their long lists of increasingly dubious ingredients. They might appear healthy, but are filled with chemicals to boost shelf-life, taste or shape. I was stunned to read that between 50-70% of daily calories in the UK and the US are consumed in ultra-processed form, from the seemingly innocuous seeded loaf to a supermarket lasagne or a carton of orange juice from concentrate. These are different from plain “processed” foods - milk, or dried and tinned products - and the main enemy for anyone striving to eat more healthily.

The food myth I’ve fallen for most egregiously is that you can eat whatever you like as long as you exercise. I’ve used a run or a cycle as psychological justification for all manner of overeating: the achievable goal of 10,000 daily steps seems like a simple ticket to “burning off” calories and fat stores. I’m clearly not alone - First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign to tackle obesity among American schoolchildren followed a similar logic. But the body has a defence mechanism against using exercise to shed weight. If you work out without taking on extra energy, your metabolism will slow, you will feel hungrier and tire easily. I experienced this last week when resolving to run 10 kilometres home from work instead of a more direct 5. I got home and made two portions of curry: one for dinner, one for lunch the next day. You can count on one hand the number of minutes between my scoffing of each portion.

::post{#yes-i-am-a-plus-size-person-and-that-is-okay}

Eating better is a slow, experimental process, determined by individual metabolisms as much as general precepts. So far, I have restricted my snacking by buying as few as possible: crisps and biscuits being my great weakness. I’m eating more fruit, vegetables and pulses, often motivated by rapidly approaching use-by dates; my foray into probiotics had me ID’d at Sainsbury’s for accidentally buying a kombucha with CBD. I’ve spent weeks deciphering what irritates my gut, and resolved to avoid the starchy panini and fruit smoothie combination that contributed to my post-lunch energy slump. Finally, I’m trying to cook more from scratch - using liberal quantities of olive oil after the revelation that it’s healthy - and to avoid ultra-processed supermarket meals.

Overhauling an entrenched diet, however, requires a considerable devotion of time and money to be long-lasting. What for me might be classed as a food rut - eating the same unhealthy lunch continuously - may be a deliberate decision for an individual on a tight budget. And where is the impetus to change? I vividly remember visiting a Walmart store in the US where an 8-piece fried chicken box cost less than a freshly-prepared fruit salad. So long as the food industry supports the cheap and easy consumption of ultra-processed foods compared to plants, then the ecosystem of junk foods, fad diets and disordered eating will remain. If anything, the gulf in price will grow; the broadcaster-turned-farmer Jeremy Clarkson has advocated that prices in the UK for farmed goods [should be doubled](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/jeremy-clarkson-food-prices-farming-b2232760.html) on account of the ‘soul-destroying’ toil that goes into their production. Amid a cost-of-living crisis, with [food prices rising 16.5%](https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/risingcostofpastabreadandothereverydayfoodsleavesmostvulnerabletheworstoff/2022-12-22#:~:text=Food%20and%20drink%20prices%20rising%20at%20fastest%20rate%20since%201977&text=Despite%20this%2C%20food%20and%20non,ONS%20Consumer%20Price%20Inflation%20bulletin.) in the 12 months to November 2022, any drive to reduce the cost of nutrient-rich plant foods would place intolerable pressure on the agricultural sector. Government subsidy could be an option, but it’s hard to see healthy foods ever competing in the marketplace with junk brands whose nutrient-deficient content is the very reason for their low price.

![*A five-year comparison of food and catering prices against the average rate of consumer price inflation shows a drastic decoupling in the last nine months.|1608x1336](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1678096529/post/Consumer_Price_Index_vs_Food_Price_Inflation_comp_jupzaa.jpg "A five-year comparison of food and catering prices against the average rate of consumer price inflation shows a drastic decoupling in the last nine months. Source: [ons.gov.uk](https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices).")

It’s remarkable to think that for 25 years, my knowledge about the food which has kept me alive has been rudimentary at best - false at worst. Nutrition science should be mandatory teaching in schools. We are taught the value of physical education at an early age, yet even by Year 6, a stunning [23.4% of British children were obese](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/#:~:text=10.1%25%20of%20reception%20age%20children,and%20published%20by%20NHS%20Digital.) in 2021-22. Dietary change is the missing ingredient. It’s a daunting task, especially when it requires decoupling from the lodestars of received wisdom in calories or daily allowances. I’d recommend that anyone read Tim Spector’s *Spoon-Fed*, which breaks down the vital precepts into a 12-point plan. Many of these require minimal effort or financial means. And some of the book’s 23 chapters - each a food myth debunked - will be applicable to all. Coffee drinkers will be pleased to hear of its benefits for digestion; alcohol lovers that a glass of red each night will be welcomed by your gut microbes.

The main lesson is to think more critically about the food we buy: its source, the number of ingredients, its sustainability, and its impact on our individual gut microbiomes once consumed. If we treat gut health with the attention it deserves - on a par with physical and mental health - we will lead happier, more vibrant lives.

To diet, or to Deliveroo? Spoon-Fed by Tim Spector reveals the misconceptions about food and nutrition you've been believing all your life.

Spoon-Fed lies: Stop eating junk food for the sake of your 30s

:color[Spoon-Fed lies:]{color=lighter}
Stop eating junk food for the sake of your 30s

Indulge me as I tell you about something embarrassing that happened to me recently.

As I am sure that you’ve already guessed from the title of the piece: it happened in an interview.

Interview is a very loose term though. In fact it was one of those New Age “pre-recorded” interviews where your computer asks you questions, and you are forced to relay your answers, solely whilst watching yourself relaying said answers on screen.

It’s the professional equivalent of that bathroom mirror chat you give yourself halfway through a house party, at the night-defining point at which your evening could end in equal measure huge success or dismal failure. I’m probably not my best self in those moments, just as I definitely wasn’t my best self in this interview. On this occasion, dismal failure was the sure result.

Ultimately my reviewer, who was able to watch the clips of me at their leisure, and most likely in their pyjamas with a glass of pinot, received a video of me trailing off midway through a sentence, stopping entirely, commenting to myself, and, I suppose, my computer that this was “a really bad answer”, and then eyeing myself up nervously and silently for the remaining time, having offered no comprehensible answer to the very simple first question.

Truly galling.

Besides the extreme disappointment (this was a job I really wanted) though, I afterwards felt short-changed. After making it through the initial obstacle of submitting a CV and covering letter which I assume had narrowed the field significantly, was the pre-recorded interview really the most appropriate next step?

::post[floatRight]{#the-working-from-home-mistake}

The supposed benefits of the pre-recorded interview format are that it allows companies to review, where there are very many, applicants without going to the huge inconvenience of actually meeting them.

Which is fine, except I wonder whether this peculiar interviewing method serves anybody, whether applicant or employer, very well. An interview should be an opportunity to see how the applicant interacts with others—what their manner is, how they respond to either criticism or acclaim, how much they really know, and whether they are likely to fit into a team. I don’t believe that the pre-recorded interview is particularly revealing on any of these fronts.

What it *might* reveal, is how competent somebody might be on a quiz show, on which participants are pressured into giving an answer to the ticking of a big yellow clock. Or something like that anyway.

I understand that it's convenient for people to be able to screen candidates at their leisure and without having to travel long distances. But the event of an interview is revealing too. Requiring someone to appear at a certain time in a certain place, in adequate attire, can tell you a lot about how much a person might care about the job. These points may seem at the same time obvious, over-fastidious, and old-fashioned, but they do matter.

![A young woman dressed in formal attire engaging in a handshake with the interviewer during a job interview|1000x62](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1684955506/post/job_interview_handshake_tqpf0w.jpg "Without sitting face-to-face, shaking hands, and making small talk, we miss the most telling aspect of a job interview; namely, how it feels to work there.")

Businesses won’t be told, and I know that I’m fighting a losing battle. Though the practice comes across to applicants as lazy, the rationale and [evidence is solid](https://essay.utwente.nl/62860/1/thesis_Bart_ter_Harmsel.pdf): using pre-recorded interviews results in fewer, and higher quality, applicants making it to face-to-face interviews.

So we continue to strive forward, leaning increasingly on our technological walking stick, into a world of perfect efficiency.

On a wider point, though, it is confusing. In the past decade, the HR profession has grown four times faster than the UK workforce. HR professionals now make up a higher proportion of the workforce than they used to, but the development of increasingly sophisticated online application portals seems to mean they are doing less of what has traditionally been expected of them.

Which begs the obvious question: what do these people *do*?

I know where my hunch points me. After years of engaging with the leadership of a top UK university, I get the sense that HR departments are busy developing their company’s all-important EDI (Equality and Diversity initiative) and chasing other PR-stunt initiatives which everyone knows are pointless. Far too busy to worry about the development and mentoring of the humans that they resource, and yet managing all the while to enforce a type of bureaucratic groupthink. And it isn’t just me that thinks so - last year [The Telegraph reported](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/17/hr-monster-destroyed-workplace/) that Human Resource departments were taking over the workplace and wielding “growing, destructive and unaccountable power.”

For those of us who’d like to see our professional lives enriched by good guidance and sensible mentorship—which begins from interview—these developments are worrying.

The future is bleak then. Imagine it now: your first appearance in your new job finds you sitting down for a talk with “Chatbot AI” whose task it is to interview you; your last comes a few months later with no less than eight HR professionals, who are there to reprimand and promptly sack you.

It’s the professional equivalent of that night-defining bathroom mirror chat you give yourself halfway through a house party.

Why will nobody interview me?

It can be intimidating as a first-time renter, so get to know your landlord, pay rent on time, take photos of your flat, and negotiate the tenancy agreement.

Renting for the first time can be both a thrilling and daunting experience. While it may be exciting to fly the nest, you might fall on your face if you take the jump without knowing the pitfalls to look out for. To help you navigate this journey and rent with confidence, here are seven mistakes to avoid for first-time renters.

7 mistakes first-time renters make — and how to avoid them

Investing in the stock market and opening a Stocks and Shares ISA is as easy as downloading an app today. So here are best investment apps in the UK.

Investing in the UK stock market today is as easy as opening a trading app on your phone and selecting a company to buy shares in. But with so many trading apps out there it can be difficult to know which one to choose. To help you decide, we have gone through all the trading apps and have selected the best investment apps in the UK.

Top 5 Investment Apps for Beginners

Here are the top 5 things you need to know about stock investing through a Stocks and Shares ISA, including how it works and how much risk to take.

Are you thinking about stock market investing for the first time? Our guide takes you through the top 5 things you need to know about stock investing through a Stocks and Shares ISA, including how it works and how much risk to take.

Investing in your 20s: Your Top 5 Questions Answered

I can’t help but be worried about the future of the qualities, the quirks, and the very essence of what AI seeks to replace.

Is A.I. making us stupid?

Even basic rights for tenants have parasitic landlords crying out that the sky is falling. I'd play them a song on my violin, but I sold it to pay my rent.

Landlords are parasites and you're the host

1861. The date of a law under which a woman was recently jailed. For what crime, you ask? Making a choice about her own body.

It’s time we aborted our outdated laws

I chose not to engage with him and let him process his reaction, which was clearly towards a deep-rooted trigger point. I learned an important lesson that day.

How to bridge a gap and understand the unintelligible

:style[How to bridge a gap]{block="true" fontSize="70"} :style[and understand the]{block="true" fontSize="73"} :style[unintelligible]{block="true" fontSize="107" lineHeight="1"}

You go into a clothing shop and you're expected to know your waist measurement, irrespective of bloating, what you had for breakfast, and the time of the month.

Love your body — not the label

Love your body, not the label.

Once thought of as naive fairy tale nonsense, making lifelong friends through the internet now feels like a reality never seen before by older generations.

Online friendships are not a joke

It might be fun to focus on the Boomer/Woke conflict, but this kind of political and economic disparity is a far bigger rift.

Could Proportional Representation unite us?

I know it's odd. A liberal defending the unelected House of Lords, but there is still a credible argument for its continued existence… even in 2023.

In Defence of The Lords

On a first date, I mentioned it was one of my favourite things to do. “By yourself?!” he exclaimed. I nodded, unsure why this was such an unusual thing.

Solo cinema trips aren’t admitting defeat - it’s self care

Solo cinema trips aren’t admitting defeat - it’s self care.

Trump is running for 2024. Yet, regardless of whether he is running his campaign from a jail cell or not, a vote for Red America spells out a climate disaster.

Why a Vote for Red America is a Disaster for a Greener World

"I’m scared". Not the kind of comment that usually follows a resignation statement.

Independence, Greens, or Something Else? What's next for us in Scotland?

:color[Independence, Greens, or Something Else?]{color=lighter} What's next for us in Scotland?

As we peruse through clothing racks, how often do we think about the technology behind their production or the effort of the people involved? Almost never.

It’s time we aborted our outdated laws

The Greenbelt has become a Green-noose

An ode to idolatry

How to bridge a gap and understand the unintelligible

Love your body, not the label.

Online friendships are not a joke

How COVID Made Us Conspiracy Theorists

Could Proportional Representation unite us?

Is A.I. making us stupid?

In Defence of The Lords

Why will nobody interview me?

Solo cinema trips aren’t admitting defeat - it’s self care.

Opinion

The Greenbelt has become a Green-noose

How COVID Made Us Conspiracy Theorists

An ode to idolatry

The 'Working from Home' Mistake

I'm fed up with 'Forever'. Where's our Übermensch?

The Greenbelt has become a Green-noose

Is A.I. making us stupid?

How COVID Made Us Conspiracy Theorists

An ode to idolatry

Why will nobody interview me?

Landlords are parasites and you're the host

No BS Guides