Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How Manipulators Use Disgust to Hijack Our Brain

News Feed
Thursday, March 14, 2024

Want to stay current with Arthur’s writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out.Disgust is an incredibly powerful negative emotion, capable of inducing vomiting, panic, and rage. The sound evolutionary reason for our experience of disgust is that it helped keep us alive—by making repellent the tastes, sights, smells, and other sensations associated with death, rottenness, or toxicity. So when your refrigerator smells wrong and, upon inspection, you find that the culprit is a piece of chicken that has gone south, you feel nauseated by something that just a week ago made your stomach growl with anticipation. And instead of eating the bad meat, you throw it out.An important part of the brain that helps govern this process is the insula, which works to keep us safe by alerting us to pathogens in our environment that might harm us. But if the insula is damaged, disgust can decrease or disappear. Scholars in 2016 showed this in an experiment involving patients with neurodegenerative diseases that affect the insula; compared with controls, the patients who had compromised insula response reported experiencing less disgust when they viewed television and film scenes that featured something disgusting, such as Trainspotting’s infamous drugs-down-the-toilet scene.[Read: How to cultivate disgust]Over time, disgust stimuli extended beyond pathogens to include not just physical phenomena but also behavioral actions, such as seeing someone do something you find objectionable. Indeed, certain immoral actions or opinions that you perceive as dangerous can elicit disgust. So if you feel strongly about, say, the environment, a person expressing what you consider a terrible viewpoint about pollution or climate change can make you feel a visceral disgust for that person—almost like something you’ve tracked in on your shoe.If this now begins to sound a little dangerous—because your disgust reflex could be vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by an unscrupulous demagogue who can tweak your insula—you are right to be concerned. Scholars have shown that political communication can activate the public’s sensitivity for disgust. You may have noticed that demagogic leaders tend to use disgust-based language for out-groups: The Nazis often referred to Jews as rats, and Hutu leaders in Rwanda called Tutsis cockroaches in the run-up to the genocide there. These were clearly efforts to associate people with creatures that spread disease and to inflame public revulsion.Fortunately, it can’t happen here, right? Well, think of the last time someone in American politics, media, or public life—perhaps someone who shares your views—referred to others as “disgusting,” said that opponents were “trash” or “vermin,” or called their convictions a “mind virus.” This rhetoric was intended to stimulate your insula, provoking the panic and rage that come with disgust, and make you more willing to take actions based on hate.The political leaders and ideological activists who are adept at triggering your disgust to serve their purposes are hard to escape: Their claims on your attention are ever more intrusive in our always-on media culture. But if you can recognize their technique of evoking disgust, you can also find ways to prevent their machinations from working on you.The abuse of human disgust to provoke hatred is highly manipulative, and suggestive of so-called dark-triad personalities, about whom I have written previously in this column (I recently launched a short dark-triad quiz inspired by this 2014 paper, if you are curious about where you fall on the spectrum). They are the 7 percent of a recent study’s international population sample who display dominant traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and they make life miserable if you have dealings with them in work or love. We all have known people like this personally, and suffered as a result. Getting away from them is always the right strategy.No doubt, many advocates for ideological causes are good and virtuous, and even those who are neither of those things are not necessarily dark-triad types. But scholars have found that people who score highly in certain dark-triad characteristics are associated with participation in politics and involvement in activism. This can lead to a phenomenon known as “virtuous victimhood,” wherein activists try to stake out a moral high ground based on claims of mistreatment rather than on righteous actions. Dark-triad activists can be found on both the left and the right, turning our democracy into a Hobbesian struggle for power and twisting efforts to achieve social change into vindictive cancel culture.[Arthur C. Brooks: The sociopaths among us—and how to avoid them]It doesn’t take too many shrewd influencers to spread disgust, because the emotion is highly contagious. Researchers have shown that when people watch video clips of the faces of people who are disgusted, this observation alone activates the viewers’ own insula. That is what enables a climate of political or social polarization to easily take hold in a culture, so that just a few influential manipulators with an audience can convince many others that a viewpoint contrary to their own is an existential threat—and that those with opposing or different views are disgusting, in effect a dangerous human pathogen in our society.In history’s worst cases, this dynamic has led to genocide. That seems a remote threat in the America of 2024, yet the phenomenon can still make solidarity across differing segments of society impossible, and explain many of our ongoing polarization problems today. America’s crisis of civility, whether in the Capitol in Washington, D.C., or on college campuses, owes much to the manipulation of disgust on either side of the aisle.For years, researchers thought that political conservatives were especially susceptible, but recent research has shown that this is not true; their sensitivity depends on the issue at hand. For example, conservatives do tend to feel disgust for behavior such as consuming illegal drugs or disturbing a church service, but liberals feel disgust when witnessing environmental pollution or xenophobia. An interesting recent example of this was the coronavirus, which appeared to elicit less disgust among conservatives than among liberals.[From the March 2024 issue: The ride of techno-authoritarianism]One key to breaking malign actors’ grip on our insulae is precisely the knowledge of how it works. Researchers who in 2022 were studying ways to lower disgust sensitivity in patients dealing with obsessive-compulsive disorder found that an effective way to do so is through education about how disgust works. Next time a leader encourages you to feel disgusted by the way other people think about immigration, climate change, or criminal justice, just say, “Hands off my insula, buddy.”Another way to fight off the efforts of disgust influencers is to increase your exposure to whatever they’re trying to manipulate your negative reaction to. Dutch food scholars in 2021 looked at the main public barrier to sustainable food alternatives such as laboratory-cultivated meat and edible insects—foodstuffs that would typically provoke a disgust response in many cultures. The researchers found that the best way to break down this barrier was through increased exposure to these alternatives.I will confess that I have no desire to eat bugs. But I have found in my own work and life that my disgust for others’ beliefs decreases when I meet in person the people who hold them. I suspect that this is one reason activist leaders seem to enforce a purity culture in their movement and can be so eager to cast out opponents with “problematic” views. If you actually meet the problematic person, you will find it harder to maintain a dehumanizing disgust for them, misguided though you may think they are.While you are working to avoid the manipulation of your insula by leaders and activists, make sure that you are not inadvertently spreading disgust: Remember that disgust is contagious when people witness it in us. Notwithstanding your feelings about others and their beliefs, endeavor to eradicate language that expresses loathing and contempt toward them.[Read: What is a populist?]You might have one last question lurking after reading all of this: What if some people truly do deserve your disgust? What if their behaviors and beliefs are so reprehensible that you should consider them to be social disease vectors?As a social scientist working in the center of conventional American discourse on social and political issues, I would humbly ask you to consider whether you can think of moments when you have been unduly influenced by an activist or leader to revile an opponent, and regretted that manipulation later. But even if you can be sure that no one’s been tampering with your insula, consider what your goal is in the causes you espouse. If it is to change society, then you will need to change others’ opinions—and people rarely change their mind if they feel that they’re seen and portrayed as an object of disgust.

And what you can do to stop them

Want to stay current with Arthur’s writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out.

Disgust is an incredibly powerful negative emotion, capable of inducing vomiting, panic, and rage. The sound evolutionary reason for our experience of disgust is that it helped keep us alive—by making repellent the tastes, sights, smells, and other sensations associated with death, rottenness, or toxicity. So when your refrigerator smells wrong and, upon inspection, you find that the culprit is a piece of chicken that has gone south, you feel nauseated by something that just a week ago made your stomach growl with anticipation. And instead of eating the bad meat, you throw it out.

An important part of the brain that helps govern this process is the insula, which works to keep us safe by alerting us to pathogens in our environment that might harm us. But if the insula is damaged, disgust can decrease or disappear. Scholars in 2016 showed this in an experiment involving patients with neurodegenerative diseases that affect the insula; compared with controls, the patients who had compromised insula response reported experiencing less disgust when they viewed television and film scenes that featured something disgusting, such as Trainspotting’s infamous drugs-down-the-toilet scene.

[Read: How to cultivate disgust]

Over time, disgust stimuli extended beyond pathogens to include not just physical phenomena but also behavioral actions, such as seeing someone do something you find objectionable. Indeed, certain immoral actions or opinions that you perceive as dangerous can elicit disgust. So if you feel strongly about, say, the environment, a person expressing what you consider a terrible viewpoint about pollution or climate change can make you feel a visceral disgust for that person—almost like something you’ve tracked in on your shoe.

If this now begins to sound a little dangerous—because your disgust reflex could be vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by an unscrupulous demagogue who can tweak your insula—you are right to be concerned. Scholars have shown that political communication can activate the public’s sensitivity for disgust. You may have noticed that demagogic leaders tend to use disgust-based language for out-groups: The Nazis often referred to Jews as rats, and Hutu leaders in Rwanda called Tutsis cockroaches in the run-up to the genocide there. These were clearly efforts to associate people with creatures that spread disease and to inflame public revulsion.

Fortunately, it can’t happen here, right? Well, think of the last time someone in American politics, media, or public life—perhaps someone who shares your views—referred to others as “disgusting,” said that opponents were “trash” or “vermin,” or called their convictions a “mind virus.” This rhetoric was intended to stimulate your insula, provoking the panic and rage that come with disgust, and make you more willing to take actions based on hate.

The political leaders and ideological activists who are adept at triggering your disgust to serve their purposes are hard to escape: Their claims on your attention are ever more intrusive in our always-on media culture. But if you can recognize their technique of evoking disgust, you can also find ways to prevent their machinations from working on you.

The abuse of human disgust to provoke hatred is highly manipulative, and suggestive of so-called dark-triad personalities, about whom I have written previously in this column (I recently launched a short dark-triad quiz inspired by this 2014 paper, if you are curious about where you fall on the spectrum). They are the 7 percent of a recent study’s international population sample who display dominant traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and they make life miserable if you have dealings with them in work or love. We all have known people like this personally, and suffered as a result. Getting away from them is always the right strategy.

No doubt, many advocates for ideological causes are good and virtuous, and even those who are neither of those things are not necessarily dark-triad types. But scholars have found that people who score highly in certain dark-triad characteristics are associated with participation in politics and involvement in activism. This can lead to a phenomenon known as “virtuous victimhood,” wherein activists try to stake out a moral high ground based on claims of mistreatment rather than on righteous actions. Dark-triad activists can be found on both the left and the right, turning our democracy into a Hobbesian struggle for power and twisting efforts to achieve social change into vindictive cancel culture.

[Arthur C. Brooks: The sociopaths among us—and how to avoid them]

It doesn’t take too many shrewd influencers to spread disgust, because the emotion is highly contagious. Researchers have shown that when people watch video clips of the faces of people who are disgusted, this observation alone activates the viewers’ own insula. That is what enables a climate of political or social polarization to easily take hold in a culture, so that just a few influential manipulators with an audience can convince many others that a viewpoint contrary to their own is an existential threat—and that those with opposing or different views are disgusting, in effect a dangerous human pathogen in our society.

In history’s worst cases, this dynamic has led to genocide. That seems a remote threat in the America of 2024, yet the phenomenon can still make solidarity across differing segments of society impossible, and explain many of our ongoing polarization problems today. America’s crisis of civility, whether in the Capitol in Washington, D.C., or on college campuses, owes much to the manipulation of disgust on either side of the aisle.

For years, researchers thought that political conservatives were especially susceptible, but recent research has shown that this is not true; their sensitivity depends on the issue at hand. For example, conservatives do tend to feel disgust for behavior such as consuming illegal drugs or disturbing a church service, but liberals feel disgust when witnessing environmental pollution or xenophobia. An interesting recent example of this was the coronavirus, which appeared to elicit less disgust among conservatives than among liberals.

[From the March 2024 issue: The ride of techno-authoritarianism]

One key to breaking malign actors’ grip on our insulae is precisely the knowledge of how it works. Researchers who in 2022 were studying ways to lower disgust sensitivity in patients dealing with obsessive-compulsive disorder found that an effective way to do so is through education about how disgust works. Next time a leader encourages you to feel disgusted by the way other people think about immigration, climate change, or criminal justice, just say, “Hands off my insula, buddy.”

Another way to fight off the efforts of disgust influencers is to increase your exposure to whatever they’re trying to manipulate your negative reaction to. Dutch food scholars in 2021 looked at the main public barrier to sustainable food alternatives such as laboratory-cultivated meat and edible insects—foodstuffs that would typically provoke a disgust response in many cultures. The researchers found that the best way to break down this barrier was through increased exposure to these alternatives.

I will confess that I have no desire to eat bugs. But I have found in my own work and life that my disgust for others’ beliefs decreases when I meet in person the people who hold them. I suspect that this is one reason activist leaders seem to enforce a purity culture in their movement and can be so eager to cast out opponents with “problematic” views. If you actually meet the problematic person, you will find it harder to maintain a dehumanizing disgust for them, misguided though you may think they are.

While you are working to avoid the manipulation of your insula by leaders and activists, make sure that you are not inadvertently spreading disgust: Remember that disgust is contagious when people witness it in us. Notwithstanding your feelings about others and their beliefs, endeavor to eradicate language that expresses loathing and contempt toward them.

[Read: What is a populist?]

You might have one last question lurking after reading all of this: What if some people truly do deserve your disgust? What if their behaviors and beliefs are so reprehensible that you should consider them to be social disease vectors?

As a social scientist working in the center of conventional American discourse on social and political issues, I would humbly ask you to consider whether you can think of moments when you have been unduly influenced by an activist or leader to revile an opponent, and regretted that manipulation later. But even if you can be sure that no one’s been tampering with your insula, consider what your goal is in the causes you espouse. If it is to change society, then you will need to change others’ opinions—and people rarely change their mind if they feel that they’re seen and portrayed as an object of disgust.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Measles Misinformation Is on the Rise – and Americans Are Hearing It, Survey Finds

Republicans are far more skeptical of vaccines and twice as likely as Democrats to believe the measles shot is worse than the disease.

By Arthur Allen | KFF Health NewsWhile the most serious measles epidemic in a decade has led to the deaths of two children and spread to nearly 30 states with no signs of letting up, beliefs about the safety of the measles vaccine and the threat of the disease are sharply polarized, fed by the anti-vaccine views of the country’s seniormost health official.About two-thirds of Republican-leaning parents are unaware of an uptick in measles cases this year while about two-thirds of Democratic ones knew about it, according to a KFF survey released Wednesday.Republicans are far more skeptical of vaccines and twice as likely (1 in 5) as Democrats (1 in 10) to believe the measles shot is worse than the disease, according to the survey of 1,380 U.S. adults.Some 35% of Republicans answering the survey, which was conducted April 8-15 online and by telephone, said the discredited theory linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism was definitely or probably true – compared with just 10% of Democrats.Get Midday Must-Reads in Your InboxFive essential stories, expertly curated, to keep you informed on your lunch break.Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.The trends are roughly the same as KFF reported in a June 2023 survey. But in the new poll, 3 in 10 parents erroneously believed that vitamin A can prevent measles infections, a theory Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought into play since taking office during the measles outbreak.“The most alarming thing about the survey is that we’re seeing an uptick in the share of people who have heard these claims,” said co-author Ashley Kirzinger, associate director of KFF’s Public Opinion and Survey Research Program. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.“It’s not that more people are believing the autism theory, but more and more people are hearing about it,” Kirzinger said. Since doubts about vaccine safety directly reduce parents’ vaccination of their children, “that shows how important it is for actual information to be part of the media landscape,” she said.“This is what one would expect when people are confused by conflicting messages coming from people in positions of authority,” said Kelly Moore, president and CEO of Immunize.org, a vaccination advocacy group.Numerous scientific studies have established no link between any vaccine and autism. But Kennedy has ordered HHS to undertake an investigation of possible environmental contributors to autism, promising to have “some of the answers” behind an increase in the incidence of the condition by September.The deepening Republican skepticism toward vaccines makes it hard for accurate information to break through in many parts of the nation, said Rekha Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer at The Immunization Partnership, in Houston.Lakshmanan on April 23 was to present a paper on countering anti-vaccine activism to the World Vaccine Congress in Washington. It was based on a survey that found that in the Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma state assemblies, lawmakers with medical professions were among those least likely to support public health measures.“There is a political layer that influences these lawmakers,” she said. When lawmakers invite vaccine opponents to testify at legislative hearings, for example, it feeds a deluge of misinformation that is difficult to counter, she said.Eric Ball, a pediatrician in Ladera Ranch, California, which was hit by a 2014-15 measles outbreak that started in Disneyland, said fear of measles and tighter California state restrictions on vaccine exemptions had staved off new infections in his Orange County community.“The biggest downside of measles vaccines is that they work really well. Everyone gets vaccinated, no one gets measles, everyone forgets about measles,” he said. “But when it comes back, they realize there are kids getting really sick and potentially dying in my community, and everyone says, ‘Holy crap; we better vaccinate!’”Ball treated three very sick children with measles in 2015. Afterward his practice stopped seeing unvaccinated patients. “We had had babies exposed in our waiting room,” he said. “We had disease spreading in our office, which was not cool.”Although two otherwise healthy young girls died of measles during the Texas outbreak, “people still aren’t scared of the disease,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which has seen a few cases.But the deaths “have created more angst, based on the number of calls I’m getting from parents trying to vaccinate their 4-month-old and 6-month-old babies,” Offit said. Children generally get their first measles shot at age 1, because it tends not to produce full immunity if given at a younger age.KFF Health News’ Jackie Fortiér contributed to this report.This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF. It was originally published on April 23, 2025, and has been republished with permission.

Evangelical churches in Indiana turn to solar and sustainability as an expression of faith

A growing number of evangelical churches and universities in Indiana are embracing renewable energy and environmental stewardship as a religious duty, reframing climate action through a spiritual lens.Catrin Einhorn reports for The New York TimesIn short:Churches across Indiana, including Christ’s Community Church and Grace Church, are installing solar panels, planting native gardens, and hosting events like Indy Creation Fest to promote environmental stewardship.Evangelical leaders say their work aligns with a biblical call to care for creation, distancing it from politicized language around climate change to appeal to more conservative congregations.Christian universities such as Indiana Wesleyan and Taylor are integrating environmental science into academics and campus life, fostering student-led sustainability efforts rooted in faith.Key quote:“It’s a quiet movement.”— Rev. Jeremy Summers, director of church and community engagement for the Evangelical Environmental NetworkWhy this matters:The intersection of faith and environmental action challenges longstanding cultural divides in the climate conversation. Evangelical communities — historically less engaged on climate issues — hold substantial political and social influence, particularly across the Midwest and South. Framing sustainability as a religious obligation sidesteps partisan divides and invites wider participation. These faith-led movements can help shift attitudes in rural and suburban America, where skepticism of climate science and federal intervention runs high. And as the environmental impacts of fossil fuel dependence grow — heatwaves, water scarcity, air pollution— the health and well-being of families in these communities are increasingly at stake. Read more: Christian climate activists aim to bridge faith and environmental actionPope Francis, who used faith and science to call out the climate crisis, dies at 88

A growing number of evangelical churches and universities in Indiana are embracing renewable energy and environmental stewardship as a religious duty, reframing climate action through a spiritual lens.Catrin Einhorn reports for The New York TimesIn short:Churches across Indiana, including Christ’s Community Church and Grace Church, are installing solar panels, planting native gardens, and hosting events like Indy Creation Fest to promote environmental stewardship.Evangelical leaders say their work aligns with a biblical call to care for creation, distancing it from politicized language around climate change to appeal to more conservative congregations.Christian universities such as Indiana Wesleyan and Taylor are integrating environmental science into academics and campus life, fostering student-led sustainability efforts rooted in faith.Key quote:“It’s a quiet movement.”— Rev. Jeremy Summers, director of church and community engagement for the Evangelical Environmental NetworkWhy this matters:The intersection of faith and environmental action challenges longstanding cultural divides in the climate conversation. Evangelical communities — historically less engaged on climate issues — hold substantial political and social influence, particularly across the Midwest and South. Framing sustainability as a religious obligation sidesteps partisan divides and invites wider participation. These faith-led movements can help shift attitudes in rural and suburban America, where skepticism of climate science and federal intervention runs high. And as the environmental impacts of fossil fuel dependence grow — heatwaves, water scarcity, air pollution— the health and well-being of families in these communities are increasingly at stake. Read more: Christian climate activists aim to bridge faith and environmental actionPope Francis, who used faith and science to call out the climate crisis, dies at 88

Will the next pope be liberal or conservative? Neither.

If there’s one succinct way to describe Pope Francis’s stewardship of the Catholic Church over the last 12 years, it might best be  done with three of his own words: “todos, todos, todos” — “everyone, everyone, everyone.” Francis, who died Monday morning in Vatican City, was both a reformer and a traditionalist. He didn’t change […]

Pope Francis meets students at Portugal’s Catholic University on August 3, 2023, in Lisbon for World Youth Day, an international Catholic rally inaugurated by St. John Paul II to invigorate young people in their faith. | Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images If there’s one succinct way to describe Pope Francis’s stewardship of the Catholic Church over the last 12 years, it might best be  done with three of his own words: “todos, todos, todos” — “everyone, everyone, everyone.” Francis, who died Monday morning in Vatican City, was both a reformer and a traditionalist. He didn’t change church doctrine, didn’t dramatically alter the Church’s teachings, and didn’t fundamentally disrupt the bedrock of Catholic belief. Catholics still believe there is one God who exists as three divine persons, that Jesus died and was resurrected, and that sin is still a thing. Only men can serve in the priesthood, life still begins at conception, and faith is lived through both prayer and good works. And yet it still feels like Pope Francis transformed the Church — breathing life into a 2,000-year-old institution by making it a player in current events, updating some of its bureaucracy to better respond to earthly affairs, and recentering the Church’s focus on the principle that it is open to all, but especially concerned with the least well off and marginalized in society. With Francis gone, how should we think of his legacy? Was he really the radical progressive revolutionary some on the American political right cast him as? And will his successor follow in his footsteps?   To try to neatly place Francis on the US political spectrum is a bit of a fool’s errand. It’s precisely because Francis and his potential successors defy our ability to categorize their legacies within our worldly, partisan, and tribalistic categories that it’s not very useful to use labels like “liberal” and “conservative.” Those things mean very different things within the Church versus outside of it. Instead, it’s more helpful to realize just how much Francis changed the Church’s tone and posturing toward openness and care for the least well off — and how he set up to Church to continue in that direction after he’s gone. He was neither liberal nor conservative: He was a bridge to the future who made the Church more relevant, without betraying its core teachings. That starting point will be critical for reading and understanding the next few weeks of papal news and speculation — especially as poorly sourced viral charts and infographics that lack context spread on social media in an attempt to explain what comes next. Revisiting Francis’s papacy Francis’s papacy is a prime example of how unhelpful it is to try to think of popes, and the Church, along the right-left political spectrum we’re used to thinking of in Western democracies.  When he was elected in 2013, Francis was a bit of an enigma. Progressives cautioned each other not to get too hopeful, while conservatives were wary about how open he would be to changing the Church’s public presence and social teachings. Before being elected pope, he was described as more traditional — not as activist as some of his Latin American peers who embraced progressive, socialist-adjacent liberation theology and intervened in political developments in Argentina, for example. He was orthodox and “uncompromising” on issues related to the right to life (euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion) and on the role of women in the church, and advocated for clergy to embrace austerity and humility. And yet he was known to take unorthodox approaches to his ministry: advocating for the poor and the oppressed, and expressing openness to other religions in Argentina. He would bring that mix of views to his papacy. The following decade would see the Church undergo few changes in theological or doctrinal teachings, and yet it still appeared as though it was dramatically breaking with the past. That duality was in part because Francis was essentially both a conservative and a liberal, by American standards, at the same time, as Catholic writer James T. Keane argued in 2021. Francis was anti-abortion, critical of gender theory, opposed to ordaining women, and opposed to marriage for same-sex couples, while also welcoming the LGBTQ community, fiercely criticizing capitalism, unabashedly defending immigrants, opposing the death penalty, and advocating for environmentalism and care for the planet. That was how Francis functioned as a bridge between the traditionalism of his predecessors and a Church able to embrace modernity. And that’s also why he had so many critics: He was both too liberal and radical, and not progressive or bold enough. Francis used the Church’s unchanging foundational teachings and beliefs to respond to the crises of the 21st century and to consistently push for a “both-and” approach to social issues, endorsing “conservative”-coded teachings while adding on more focus to social justice issues that hadn’t been the traditionally associated with the church. That’s the approach he took when critiquing consumerism, modern capitalism, and “throwaway culture,” for example, employing the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life to attack abortion rights, promote environmentalism, and criticize neo-liberal economics. None of those issues required dramatic changes to the Church’s religious or theological teachings. But they did involve moving the church beyond older debates — such as abortion, contraception, and marriage — and into other moral quandaries: economics, immigration, war, and climate change. And he spoke plainly about these debates in public, as when he responded, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about LGBTQ Catholics or said he wishes that hell is “empty.” Still, he reinforced that softer, more inquisitive and humble church tone with restructuring and reforms within the church bureaucracy — essentially setting the church up for a continued march along this path. Nearly 80 percent of the cardinals who are eligible to vote in a papal conclave were appointed by Francis — some 108 of 135 members of the College of Cardinals who can vote, per the Vatican itself. Most don’t align on any consistent ideological spectrum, having vastly different beliefs about the role of the Church, how the Church’s internal workings should operate, and what the Church’s social stances should be — that’s partially why it’s risky to read into and interpret projections about “wings” or ideological “factions” among the cardinal-electors as if they are a parliament or house of Congress. There will naturally be speculation, given who Francis appointed as cardinals, that his successor will be non-European and less traditional. But as Francis himself showed through his papacy, the church has the benefit of time and taking the long view on social issues. He reminded Catholics that concern for the poor and oppressed must be just as central to the Church’s presence in the world as any age-old culture war issue. And to try to apply to popes and the Church the political labels and sets of beliefs we use in America is pointless.

Grassroots activists who took on corruption and corporate power share 2025 Goldman prize

Seven winners of environmental prize include Amazonian river campaigner and Tunisian who fought against organised waste traffickingIndigenous river campaigner from Peru honouredGrassroots activists who helped jail corrupt officials and obtain personhood rights for a sacred Amazonian river are among this year’s winners of the world’s most prestigious environmental prize.The community campaigns led by the seven 2025 Goldman prize winners underscore the courage and tenacity of local activists willing to confront the toxic mix of corporate power, regulatory failures and political corruption that is fuelling biodiversity collapse, water shortages, deadly air pollution and the climate emergency. Continue reading...

Grassroots activists who helped jail corrupt officials and obtain personhood rights for a sacred Amazonian river are among this year’s winners of the world’s most prestigious environmental prize.The community campaigns led by the seven 2025 Goldman prize winners underscore the courage and tenacity of local activists willing to confront the toxic mix of corporate power, regulatory failures and political corruption that is fuelling biodiversity collapse, water shortages, deadly air pollution and the climate emergency.This year’s recipients include Semia Gharbi, a scientist and environmental educator from Tunisia, who took on an organised waste trafficking network that led to more than 40 arrests, including 26 Tunisian officials and 16 Italians with ties to the illegal trade.Semia Gharbi campaigning in Tunisia. Photograph: Goldman environmental prizeGharbi, 57, headed a public campaign demanding accountability after an Italian company was found to have shipped hundreds of containers of household garbage to Tunisia to dump in its overfilled landfill sites, rather than the recyclable plastic it had declared it was shipping.Gharbi lobbied lawmakers, compiled dossiers for UN experts and helped organise media coverage in both countries. Eventually, 6,000 tonnes of illegally exported household waste was shipped back to Italy in February 2022, and the scandal spurred the EU to close some loopholes governing international waste shipping.Not far away in the Canary Islands, Carlos Mallo Molina helped lead another sophisticated effort to prevent the construction of a large recreational boat and ferry terminal on the island of Tenerife that threatened to damage Spain’s most important marine reserve.Carlos Mallo Molina. Photograph: Goldman environmental prizeThe tourism gravy train can seem impossible to derail, but in 2018 Mallo swapped his career as a civil engineer to stop the sprawling Fonsalía port, which threatened the 170,000-acre biodiverse protected area that provides vital habitat for endangered sea turtles, whales, giant squid and blue sharks.As with Gharbi in Tunisia, education played a big role in the campaign’s success and included developing a virtual scuba dive into the threatened marine areas and a children’s book about a sea turtle searching for seagrass in the Canary Islands. After three years of pressure backed by international environmental groups, divers and residents, the government cancelled construction of the port, safeguarding the only whale heritage site in European territorial waters.“It’s been a tough year for both people and the planet,” said Jennifer Goldman Wallis, vice-president of the Goldman Environmental Foundation. “There’s so much that worries us, stresses us, outrages us, and keeps us divided … these environmental leaders and teachers – and the global environmental community that supports them – are the antidote.”For the past 36 years, the Goldman prize has honoured environmental defenders from each of the world’s six inhabited continental regions, recognising their commitment and achievements in the face of seemingly insurmountable hurdles. To date, 233 winners from 98 nations have been awarded the prize. Many have gone on to hold positions in governments, as heads of state, nonprofit leaders, and as Nobel prize laureates.Three Goldman recipients have been killed, including the 2015 winner from Honduras, the Indigenous Lenca leader Berta Cáceres, whose death in 2016 was orchestrated by executives of an internationally financed dam company whose project she helped stall.Environmental and land rights defenders often persist in drawn-out efforts to secure clean water and air for their communities and future generations – despite facing threats including online harassment, bogus criminal charges, and sometimes physical violence. More than 2,100 land and environmental defenders were killed globally between 2012 and 2023, according to an observatory run by the charity Global Witness.Latin America remains the most dangerous place to defend the environment but a range of repressive tactics are increasingly being used to silence activists across Asia, the US, the UK and the EU.In the US, Laurene Allen was recognised for her extraordinary leadership, which culminated in a plastics plant being closed in 2024 after two decades of leaking toxic forever chemicals into the air, soil and water supplies in the small town of Merrimack, New Hampshire. The 62-year-old social worker turned water protector developed the town’s local campaign into a statewide and national network to address Pfas contamination, helping persuade the Biden administration to establish the first federal drinking water standard for forever chemicals.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionLaurene Allen. Photograph: Goldman environmental prizeThree of this year’s Goldman recipients were involved in battles to save two rivers thousands of miles apart – in Peru and Albania – which both led to landmark victories.Besjana Guri and Olsi Nika not only helped stop construction of a hydroelectric dam on the 167-mile Vjosa River, but their decade-long campaign led to the Albanian government declaring it a wild river national park.Guri, 37, a social worker, and Nika, 39, a biologist and ecologist, garnered support from scientists, lawyers, EU parliamentarians and celebrities, including Leonardo DiCaprio, for the new national park – the first in Europe to protect a wild river. This historic designation protects the Vjosa and its three tributaries, which are among the last remaining free-flowing undammed rivers in Europe.In Peru, Mari Luz Canaquiri Murayari, 56, led the Indigenous Kukama women’s association to a landmark court victory that granted the 1,000-mile Marañón River legal personhood, with the right to be free-flowing and free of contamination.Mari Luz Canaquiri Murayari. Photograph: Goldman environmental prizeThe Marañón River and its tributaries are the life veins of Peru’s tropical rainforests and support 75% of its tropical wetlands – but also flow through lands containing some of the South American country’s biggest oil and gas fields. The court ordered the Peruvian government to stop violating the rivers’ rights, and take immediate action to prevent future oil spills.The Kukama people, who believe their ancestors reside on the riverbed, were recognised by the court as stewards of the great Marañón.This year’s oldest winner was Batmunkh Luvsandash from Mongolia, an 81-year-old former electrical engineer whose anti-mining activism has led to 200,000 acres of the East Gobi desert being protected from the world’s insatiable appetite for metal minerals.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.