
Monday, 23 March 2026
19 Cities Including London, San Francisco, Hong Kong Achieve ‘Remarkable Reductions’ in Air Pollution

Sunday, 22 March 2026
NFR reports significant growth in solar power generation
25 multinationals named to Fortune World’s Best Workplaces list


Friday, 20 March 2026
Fines alone won’t stop big tech behaving badly. Here’s what might work
As countries around the world look to follow Australia’s lead and implement a social media ban for kids, many are also considering fines as an enforcement mechanism.
This is part of the playbook when it comes to regulating big tech. For example, last month the United Kingdom’s data watchdog fined Reddit £14 million (A$26 million) for unlawfully using children’s data.
In April 2025, the European Commission fined Apple and Meta €500 million (A$820 million) and €200 million (A$329 million) respectively for breaching the Digital Markets Act. And in September, the commission fined Google nearly €3 billion (A$4.9 billion) for abusive practices in online advertising technology.
But fines don’t always work to encourage companies to follow the law. For some companies, “illegal with a fine” is interpreted as “legal for a price”. So what are some other, more effective methods to encourage good corporate behaviour?
Fines can backfire
If fines are not consistent, immediate, and severe, they can backfire. If they do, bad behaviour may increase.
For example, a 2000 study examined the effect of childcare centres in Israel introducing fines for parents who regularly picked their children up late. But instead, these fines actually increased late pick-ups by parents.
Even after fines were stopped, the number of late pick-ups stayed higher than before.
Why? Because when there were fines, they were small (not severe), and parents could wait a month to pay (not immediate). However, parents got the immediate benefit of longer childcare.
Similarly, technology companies may decide a fine is cheaper than the costs to make changes, or any loss in money from fewer users and ad sales. And this could lead to them continuing with business-as-usual.
Corporate fines often fail because it may be unclear who in the company is directly responsible. Fines can also sometimes be too small to stop bad behaviour by large companies.
For these reasons, corporate re-offending is frequent, even if companies have been fined in the past.
A fine equals forgiveness
After introducing fines, behaviours previously considered socially or morally unacceptable may also be seen as “forgiven” by payment. This can increase bad behaviour.
The importance of unwanted behaviours may also be judged by the size of the fine.
If fines are seen as “small”, violations may also be seen as small, and bad behaviours may rise. Corporations may also see “small” fines as just a cost-of-doing-business.
Importantly, fine size is closely linked to a company’s financial size. For a small company, a fine could seem huge. The same sized fine may seem tiny to a large company. If similarly sized fines are given to companies making different revenue amounts, the companies may respond differently.
Changing company practices can also cost more for some companies than others. This too may affect how they respond to fines.
Furthermore, companies outside a legislative jurisdiction, or that have refused regulators’ demands in the past, may ignore fines altogether.
For example, 4Chan refused to pay fines issued under the UK’s Online Safety Act, and X decided to legally challenge instead of pay a €120 million (A$197 million) fine issued by the European Commission.
Given the borderless nature of some digital harms such as child sexual exploitation and abuse, coordinated changes to corporate laws, and international cooperation are needed.
Pulling multiple levers at once
So if fines alone don’t stop big tech and other businesses behaving badly, what will?
Research shows monitoring companies, and better resourcing regulators, are more effective than fines alone. Consistent regulator inspections combined with education also work well.
A 2025 paper suggests making “stand-alone consumer tech safety research centres” focused on reducing digital harms. This may require technology companies making data and algorithms available to these centres for inspection.
Then, regulators can look at if companies are using important and best practice safety features. For example, checking the images on sites to make sure users do not see harmful content online.
Regulators can also share knowledge with companies about laws and digital safety measures to improve consumer protections.
This cooperative model has been shown to be more effective than fines alone.
A 2016 study about what works when it comes to corporate deterrence found using multiple levers at the same time, such as monitoring, accountability, auditing, and punitive action were the most effective at stopping bad corporate behaviour.
Unfortunately, understanding the scope of digital harms, and best responses, have been limited by not enough resources, or access to data.
A 2025 paper highlights that increased data transparency from corporations will also improve evidence-informed decisions, ensuring regulation is fit-for-purpose.
As companies continue to prioritise rapid rollouts, with problems found after launch, fines may continue to be ineffective.
To tackle this problem, online regulators must ensure fines are complemented with other policy levers – and that the punishment for bad corporate behaviour is consistent, immediate and severe.![]()
Lauren C. Hall, PhD Candidate in Psychology, University of Tasmania; Christine Padgett, Senior Lecturer at the School of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania; James Sauer, Associate professor in Psychology, University of Tasmania, and MarÃa Yanotti, Lecturer of Economics and Finance Tasmanian School of Business & Economics, University of Tasmania
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dia Mirza lauds Anubhav Sinha’s ‘Assi’, calls it ‘one of the most important films of our times’
Thursday, 19 March 2026
Largest ever Parkinson’s study shows how symptoms differ between men and women
Lyndsey Collins-Praino, Adelaide University
Parkinson’s disease is the fastest growing neurological disorder, with over 10 million cases worldwide. Up to 150,000 Australians currently live with the disease and 50 new cases are diagnosed each day.
The number of people living with Parkison’s is projected to more than triple between 2020 and 2050.
Yet despite the immense impact on those living with Parkinson’s and their loved ones, and the staggering cost to our economy – at least A$10 billion a year – there is still a lot we don’t know about how this disease presents and progresses.
A recent large-scale study of nearly 11,000 Australians living with Parkinson’s disease provides some critical insights into symptoms, risk factors and how these affect men and women differently. Let’s take a look.
First, what is Parkinson’s disease?
Parkinson’s is a progressive disease in which cells that produce the chemical messenger dopamine in a part of the brain called the “substantia nigra” begin to die. This is accompanied by multiple other brain changes.
It is usually considered a movement disorder. Common motor symptoms include a resting tremor, slowed movement (bradykinesia), muscle stiffness and balance issues.
But Parkinson’s also involves a variety of lesser known non-motor symptoms. These may include:
- mood changes
- difficulties with memory and cognition (including slower thinking, challenges with planning or multitasking and difficulty paying attention or concentrating)
- sleep disturbances
- autonomic dysfunction (such as constipation, low blood pressure and urinary problems).
While these are sometimes referred to as the “invisible” symptoms of Parkinson’s, they often have a greater negative impact on quality of life than motor symptoms.
So, what does the new research tell us?
The study used data collected as part of the Australian Parkinson’s Genetics Study led by the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute. After a pilot study in 2020, it was launched as an ongoing, nationwide research project in 2022.
Some 10,929 Australians with Parkinson’s were surveyed and provided saliva samples for genetic analysis. This is the largest Parkinson’s cohort studied in Australia and the largest active cohort worldwide.
There were several key initial findings.
1. Non-motor symptoms are common
The study reinforced how common non-motor symptoms are, with loss of smell (52%), changes in memory (65%), pain (66%) and dizziness (66%) all commonly reported.
Notably, 96% of participants experienced sleep disturbances, such as insomnia and daytime sleepiness.
2. A better picture of risk factors
The study also provided insights into what can influence Parkinson’s risk.
This is important because we don’t completely understand what causes the dopamine producing cells in the substantia nigra to die in the first place.
Age is the primary risk factor for Parkinson’s. The new study found the average age for symptom onset was 64, and for diagnosis, 68.
3. Genes and environment both play a role
In the recent study, one in four people (25%) had a family history of Parkinson’s. But only 10–15% of Parkinson’s cases are caused by – or strongly linked to – mutations in specific genes.
It’s important to remember that families don’t only share genes but often their environment.
Multiple environmental factors, such as pesticide exposure and traumatic brain injury, also increase risk of Parkinson’s.
The majority (85–90%) of cases of Parkinson’s are likely due to complex interaction between genetic and environmental risk factors, and advancing age.
The study showed environmental exposures linked to Parkinson’s risk were common:
- 36% of people reported pesticide exposure
- 16% had a prior history of traumatic brain injury
- 33% had worked in high-risk occupations (such as agriculture, or petrochemicals or metal processing).
These exposures were significantly higher in men than in women.
4. Differences between the sexes
The disease is 1.5 times more common in men. In the new study, 63% of those surveyed were male.
Parkinson’s also presents and progresses differently in males and females.
The study found women were younger than men at time of symptom onset (63.7 versus 64.4 years) and diagnosis (67.6 versus 68.1 years), and more likely than men to experience pain (70% versus 63%) and falls (45% versus 41%).
Men experienced more memory changes than women (67% versus 61%) and impulsive behaviours, particularly sexual behaviour (56% versus 19%) – although most participants exhibited no or only mild impulsivity.
What we still don’t know
The large-scale study and its comprehensive survey shed valuable light on people living with Parkinson’s in Australia.
But it’s still only a sliver of the population. More than 186,000 people with Parkinson’s were invited to participate and just under 11,000 took part – a less than 6% response rate.
Of these participants, 93% had European ancestry. So this sample may not be fully representative of Parkinson’s disease.
The information we have about symptoms also relied on self-reports by the study’s participants, which are subjective and can be biased or less reliable than objective measurements of function. To address this, the researchers are planning to use smartphones and wearable devices to collect more comprehensive data.
Finally, while this provides a snapshot of the current cohort, it’s not clear how participants compare to people of a similar age without Parkinson’s, or how their symptoms may change over time.
These are important areas of future research for this ongoing study.
What all this means
Studies like this provide crucial insights into risk factors linked to Parkinson’s. They also help us better understand the symptoms people experience.
This is important because the way Parkinson’s presents varies from person to person. Not everyone will experience the same symptoms to the same extent.
Similarly, the way the disease progresses over time differs between people.
A better understanding of the factors that influence this can lead to earlier identification of who’s at risk and more personalised ways of managing this disease.![]()
Lyndsey Collins-Praino, Associate Professor, School of Biomedicine, Adelaide University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Wednesday, 18 March 2026
Should e‑bike riders be required to have a driver’s licence?
E-bikes have been increasing in popularity – they make cycling more accessible than ever. However, they’ve also been linked to tragic accidents.
In response, the Queensland government has conducted a parliamentary inquiry on e-mobility devices, including e-scooters and e-bikes.
The inquiry aimed to improve safety and address community concerns. It examined benefits, risks (crashes or battery fires), existing regulations compared to other jurisdictions, enforcement approaches, and importation laws.
The resulting report recommends banning all e-bikes for riders under 16, and requiring at least a learner driver’s licence to operate them.
If implemented, Queensland would become only the second jurisdiction in the world to mandate a driver’s licence for riding a standard e-bike, joining New Jersey, which passed similar legislation in January to much condemnation.
If Queeensland adopts this rule, it will quickly become the worst state for cycling in Australia – and set a dangerous precedent.
How risky are legal e-bikes?
Legal e-bikes (also known as pedelecs, short for “pedal electric cycles”) don’t pose greater risks than conventional bicycles. On average, e-bike crashes are equally as likely and severe as conventional bike crashes. And research from Denmark even shows e-bike riders are more likely to follow traffic laws and are more safety oriented than conventional cyclists.
A pedelec is defined under the European Union EN 15194 standard as a bicycle in which the motor provides assistance only when the rider pedals, power is limited to 250 watts, and the maximum assisted speed is 25km/h. This is the standard recognised in Australia.
To be clear, 250 watts is roughly the power an avid cyclist can generate with their body. Professional cyclists easily produce well over 400 watts.
The injury stats only become troubling when these standard pedelecs get mixed in with more powerful devices that can have a max pedal-assisted speed of 45km/h or more. The problem of increased danger doesn’t lie with EN 15194 compliant e-bikes.
Who would be impacted by licensing requirements?
About 7.5% of Queenslanders aged 16 and over – more than 340,000 people – don’t hold a driver’s licence. Across Australia, an estimated 1.5 million adults are without a licence.
These include:
- people with certain types of disabilities (visual, neurological or cognitive)
- children under 16 riding to school
- migrant workers from countries with licences not recognised in Australia, or who are in the process of transferring overseas licences. Many delivery riders fall in this category
- urban youth, who increasingly rely on alternative transport and delay obtaining a learner’s permit
- older people who have given up driving for age-related reasons
- low-income people for whom the costs associated with lessons, testing, and car ownership are prohibitive
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in regional and remote areas. These communities often face practical barriers to licensing, such as high cost, difficulties obtaining identity documents, and limited access to training
- individuals who are car-free by choice for lifestyle or environmental reasons
- people who have temporarily lost their driver’s licence, such as for speeding.
In short, legal e-bikes provide an important way to get around and maintain independence for many people. They can travel to work, education, or social activities without relying on a car.
For Queensland locals, even requiring a learner’s licence would impose a significant burden. Obtaining one costs about A$77 and requires passing an online test which typically takes four to six hours. Test questions focus on motor vehicle laws, not rules specific to cycling or e-mobility. The test is offered only in English and requires proof of identity and residency in Queensland.
Visitors from countries where driver’s licences are far less common than in Australia would be impacted too. For example, only about half of Chinese adults have a licence.
Queensland hosts more than 2 million international visitors annually, and Brisbane is expected to welcome more than 100,000 international visitors during the 2032 Olympic Games. Unless they hold a licence from their home country, these visitors would be forced to rely on ride-hailing services or risk penalties for using a legal e-bike.
What should be done instead?
A more effective approach would focus on clear vehicle classification, targeted regulation, safe cycling infrastructure, and education. This is the model used in the European Union.
Regulators should maintain a clear distinction between standard e-bikes and higher-powered devices.
EN 15194 compliant e-bikes should be legally treated as ordinary bicycles and integrated into everyday mobility. They shouldn’t require a driver’s licence, registration, or insurance. Riders should simply follow the same rules that apply to cyclists.
Only the more powerful models should require licensing and insurance. E-bikes that reach up to 45km/h should be classified as mopeds. In this way, regulation can reflect the actual risk level of the vehicle.
Enforcement is key. Authorities should focus on ensuring that devices sold in the market actually comply with power and speed limits. Regulators should keep targeting non-compliant imports and illegal modifications.
We all share the road
Beyond product standards, much more emphasis should be placed on infrastructure. Investments in protected bike lanes, traffic calming, and well-designed intersections are crucial to improving safety for all road users.
Finally, Australia should start investing heavily in education and communication campaigns. Cycling education should be provided through schools, local councils, and road safety programs. These should focus on responsible riding, interaction with pedestrians, and visibility in traffic.
Importantly, they should also encourage a mindset that moves away from an “us versus them” stance between drivers and cyclists. Children should learn early that, as adults, they may occupy both roles – sometimes driving, sometimes cycling.
In combination, these policy approaches would allow e-bikes to expand while remaining a safe, accessible and inclusive mobility option.![]()
Richard J. Buning, Research Lead, UQ Micromobility Research Cluster, The University of Queensland; Dorina Pojani, Associate Professor in Urban Planning, The University of Queensland, and Tyler Riordan, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Strategic Management, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Monday, 16 March 2026
Oscars 2026: Priyanka Chopra presents Best International Feature Film with Javier Bardem, latter says, ‘Free Palestine
Sunday, 15 March 2026
Formula 1: Bahrain, Saudi Arabian Grands Prix canceled
Saturday, 14 March 2026
'Love, happiness and beautiful memories…': Raina pens heartfelt message as Kuldeep sets for new beginning
Can the 2026 FIFA World Cup still be a force for global unity?
Paul R. Carr, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO) and Alexis Legault, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)
The FIFA Men’s World Cup will unfold across North America from June 11 to July 19, co-hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States. This year’s event will be the largest ever, with some 48 countries represented.
The FIFA 2026 World Cup was awarded in 2018 and preparations have been ongoing ever since. However, the U.S. has significantly altered course since the election of Donald Trump in January 2025.
The international community is facing an onslaught of actions, threats and rhetoric from the U.S. government, which has led to chaos, confusion, instability and massive political, economic and sociocultural vulnerability.
As a result, calls have emerged to boycott the tournament, including from former FIFA president Sepp Blatter.
It’s clearly late in the game to consider adjusting, transferring, suspending or altering this thoroughly planned international event. The implications for changing the status of the FIFA 2026 tournament are numerous and far-reaching.
Why consider a boycott now?
A series of recent American actions raises serious questions about its suitability to host the FIFA World Cup at this time.
These include destabilizing allies, imposing tariffs without clear justification, launching a military attacking on Iran with Israel, attacking Venezuela and capturing its president, threatening to annex Greenland and Canada, eliminating USAID and putting millions of people at risk of disease, illness, famine and death and overseeing the violence inflicted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents that endangers citizens and residents.
In addition, the fair and equitable treatment of people seeking to visit the U.S. cannot be assured. People from many countries would effectively be barred from visiting the U.S. to attend the event because of current American policy.
There is a serious threat of people being detained, surveilled and persecuted. Racial profiling is a particular concern given how ICE has maneuvered in immigrant communities in the U.S.
Many are also concerned about violence within the U.S., which is disproportionately higher than in most western countries.
At the same time, the U.S. has withdrawn from numerous international organizations and agreements, the antithesis of co-operation on global issues, shutting down the potential for meaningful and necessary dialogue.
All these realities fly in the face of the spirit and solidarity of global sporting events like the World Cup that aim to cultivate peace and intercultural understanding.
FIFA’s record
Allegations of corruption and bribery within FIFA have persisted for years. They have been documented in a U.S. Department of Justice indictment and in FIFA’s own Garcia Report.
FIFA is sensitive to these complaints, and some reforms have been implemented to make the organization more transparent and credible, but many groups still argue the corruption is rampant.
Human rights have long been an issue at FIFA events. The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar prompted concerns related to LGBTQ+ rights, with many players wearing the “One Love” armband in protest. It also raised concerns over the rights of workers and migrants, who were exploited and faced discrimination.
There are also environmental concerns related to the carbon footprint of such a large event. However, the counter-claim of the event fostering global solidarity is an equally strong justification for it.
FIFA is lathered in capitalist trappings, and there is a great deal of profit to be made for a small number of people. The 2026 World Cup is expected to bring in more than US$10 billion for the organization.
It is unclear how local taxpayers and citizens benefit economically from holding the World Cup, especially given that they underwrite many of the costs through their taxes.
Similarly, the marketing, television and dissemination rights present a lucrative landscape, yet that funding does little to fight poverty, hunger and unacceptable living conditions for many.
Do boycotts work?
There is some debate about the effectiveness of boycotting. The boycotts of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, following the invasion of Afghanistan, and of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, led by the Soviet bloc in retaliation, did not produce substantive political change.
Some questioned the enormity of eliminating the potential for intercultural and diplomatic interaction.
By contrast, the sporting boycott of apartheid-era South Africa from 1964 to 1992 did help contribute to significant change in the country.
The ongoing Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel — although not supported by the U.S. and many other countries — has had varying success, but the very fact that it exists and is supported by many is politically significant.
The costs of boycotting now
Altering or boycotting the tournament at this stage would inevitably punish national teams and athletes for political considerations beyond their reach. The FIFA event could generate goodwill, promote global understanding and bring people together, especially in relation to nations from the Global South that are often portrayed negatively.
Some argue a boycott would affect players and fans more than FIFA itself. The economic repercussions of a boycott would also be substantial. Yet the very notion of a boycott is that it does, and should, affect and influence attitudes, behaviours and actions.
Others have suggested alternative avenues for change, including through organized protests and social movement mobilization.
Other alternative proposals for enacting change include targeted boycotts against certain sponsors, institutions and sectors. Some activists may wish to target a policy, such as the assault on migrants in the U.S. or corruption within FIFA.
A force for the global public good?
Boycotts are complicated and have been more commonly related to the Olympic Games than the World Cup. However, citizens and activists alike seek opportunities to develop a more just and equitable world.
In 2021, there were also great concerns regarding human rights violations. Interestingly, while a Statista survey of 4,201 respondents across 120 countries found that most respondents believed their country should boycott the 2022 World cup in Qatar, very few soccer fans were willing to boycott it themselves.
But FIFA isn’t a political party; it’s a business and sports organization. Although considered favourable, it does not need the population to approve its decisions, and sponsors are at risk of being targeted and tarnished if public sentiment turns sharply against the event.
Will the FIFA World Cup provide the opportunity for the U.S. to address problems of racism, gender discrimination, the mantra to annex other countries, ICE overreach and denigration against migrants? Or will such issues be simply swept under the carpet?
The tournament could offer a platform to engage with the world through diplomacy grounded in sovereignty, human rights and mutual benefit. A tri-national hosting arrangement with Canada and Mexico may yet foster cross-border co-operation, even amid strained relations.
The current U.S. political climate does not provide an encouraging model to move the FIFA World Cup toward peace and solidarity currently, but the world is in desperate need for it to do so.![]()
Paul R. Carr, Professeur/Professor (Université du Québec en Outaouais) & Titulaire/Chair, Chaire UNESCO en démocratie, citoyenneté mondiale et éducation transformatoire/ UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global Citizenship and Transformative Education., Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO) and Alexis Legault, PhD Candidate in Education, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Thursday, 12 March 2026
Teacher Wins $1M Prize for Turning India's Slums Into Hundreds of Open-Air Classrooms



New Baby Boom for Cheetahs in India After First-in-the-World Reintroduction

Monday, 9 March 2026
T20 WC: Samson, Bumrah star as India clinch third title, beat New Zealand by 96 runs
Wednesday, 4 March 2026
How to live a long and healthy life, according to the ancients
Just like in the modern world, people in ancient times wanted to know how to live a long and healthy life.
Greeks and Romans heard fantastic tales of far-away peoples living to well beyond 100.
Greek essayist Lucian (about 120–180 CE) writes:
Indeed, there are even whole nations that are very long-lived, like the Seres [Chinese], who are said to live 300 years: some attribute their old age to the climate, others to the soil and still others to their diet, for they say that this entire nation drinks nothing but water. The people of Athos are also said to live 130 years, and it is reported that the Chaldeans live more than 100, using barley bread to preserve the sharpness of their eyesight.
Greek essayist Lucian had lots to say about how to live a long and healthy life, as did ancient doctors. Library of Congress, Washington DC/WikimediaWhatever the truth of these tales, many ancient Greeks and Romans wanted a long and healthy life.
This is how they thought this could happen.
An ancient doctor’s perspective
Ancient doctors were interested in what people who lived long lives were doing every day and how this might have helped.
The Greek physician Galen (129–216 CE), for example, discusses two people he knew personally in Rome who lived to old age.
First, there is a grammarian (someone who studies and teaches grammar) called Telephus, who lived to almost 100.
According to Galen, Telephus ate just three times a day. His diet was simple:
gruel boiled in water mixed with raw honey of the best quality, and this alone was enough for him at the first meal. He also dined at the seventh hour or a little sooner, taking vegetables first and next tasting fish or birds. In the evening, he used to eat only bread, moistened in wine that had been mixed.
Galen also tells us Telephus had some bathing habits that might seem unusual to us today. Telephus preferred to be massaged with olive oil every day and only have a bath a few times a month:
He was in the habit of bathing twice a month in winter and four times a month in summer. In the seasons between these, he bathed three times a month. On the days he didn’t bathe, he was anointed around the third hour with a brief massage.
Second, there was an old doctor named Antiochus, who lived into his 80s.
According to Galen, Antiochus also had a simple diet.
In the morning, Antiochus usually ate toasted bread with honey. Then, at lunch, he would eat fish, but usually only fish “from around the rocks and those from the deep sea”. For dinner, he would eat “either gruel with oxymel [a mix of vinegar and honey] or a bird with a simple sauce”.
Alongside this simple diet, Antiochus went for a walk every morning. He also liked to be driven in a chariot, or had his slaves carry him in a chair around the city.
Galen also said Antiochus “performed the exercises suitable for an old man”:
There is one thing you should do for old people in the early morning as an exercise: after massage with oil, next get them to walk about and carry out passive exercises without becoming fatigued, taking into account the capacity of the old person.
Galen concludes that Antiochus’ routine probably contributed to his good health well into advanced age:
Looking after himself in old age in this way, Antiochus continued on until the very end, unimpaired in his senses and sound in all his limbs.
Galen stresses that Telephus and Antiochus had some obvious things in common. They ate just a few times a day; their diet was of wild meats, whole grains, bread and honey; and they kept active every day.
An eye exam is under way. But there was more to staying healthy in ancient times. Rabax63/Wikimedia, CC BY-SAWhat can you do?
Not all of us can live to 100 or more, as the Greeks and Romans were well aware.
However, Lucian offers us some consolation in his essay On Octogenarians:
On every soil and in every climate people who observe the proper exercise and the diet most suitable for health have been long-lived.
Lucian advised that we should imitate the lifestyles of people who have lived long and healthy lives if we want to do the same.
So, if you lived in Rome in the 2nd century CE, people like Telephus and Antiochus, who had a simple diet and kept active all their lives, would be good role models.![]()
Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

