upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
Heroes

See it here: exclusive English translation of powerful viral Chinese documentary 'Under the Dome'

Investigative journalist Chai Jing's self-funded documentary "Under the Dome" about the long-term effects of air pollution in China went massively viral in early March 2015, racking up over 150 million views in its first weekend. Read the English translation here.

Retired investigative journalist Chai Jing's self-funded documentary "Under the Dome" about the long-term effects of air pollution in China went massively viral in early March 2015, racking up over 150 million views in its first weekend.

We at Upworthy felt it was so important to share the documentary with non-Mandarin speakers that we commissioned exclusive translations of the first and last 10 minutes of the documentary.


To fill in the middle, however, we called on Upworthy Head of Product Mike Su, who grew up in Taiwan and speaks fluent Mandarin, to provide a summarized play-by-play.

(Update 7/11/2016: The original documentary has since added complete English-language captioning, and that version now appears below.)

You can watch the documentary (with captions) in its entirety here or scroll down to read our time-stamped highlights:

[10:02-12:30]

The first 10 minutes of the documentary segue into a short animation that breaks down the science behind how harmful "PM2.5" is. PM2.5 means particulate matter (aka pollution!) that is 2.5 micrometers and smaller. People in China have been told that exposure to pollution helps the body adapt to it. But this is scientifically untrue.

Jing's animation shows PM2.5 and its gang of toxins as playing a video game to get into the body, slipping through each layer of defense the body puts up and why they are insufficient to stop the almighty PM2.5.

Exposing the human body to PM2.5 does not help it adapt. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 will ultimately compromise your immune system, and at worst, the particles will enter directly into the bloodstream, which can be fatal.

Scariest. Animation. Evar.

[12:30]


Here Jing shows a chart displaying the close correlation between death rates and elevated PM2.5 levels. The most vulnerable members of the community are children and parents.

[13:20]

Parents allowed Jing to photograph their children who were born with respiratory problems. Just a few months into their young lives, they had already contracted pneumonia. It is suspected that this is the result of not properly protecting them when heavy haze (made up of the dreaded PM2.5) rolled in.

The parents tell Jing that doctors explained to them that they cannot officially tie the pneumonia and respiratory problems to the haze just yet. But! What they can say is that in January 2013, during a period of particularly heavy haze, 27 cities in China reported 10%-150% increases in emergency room visits for children and the elderly.

[13:47]

Around the time that Jing gave birth to her daughter, she found herself speaking to other mothers, asking whether it's true that exposing children to pollution helps them adapt. She introduces a clip of a University of Southern California professor who rebuts that theory.

Dr. Avol points to the massive amounts of evidence showing that children breathing clean air grow faster than children in polluted areas, and that poor lung function early in life is a predictor of poor lung function later in life. In other words, says Dr. Avol, "[When you do] something about the air while the child is still growing, you can make a change in that child's life."

[15:00]

It's heartbreaking, but Jing explains coming to the realization that she cannot protect her child forever. She cannot prevent her daughter from breathing.

[15:30]

(If you're squeamish, scroll past this next image, OK?)

A lung cancer patient allows Jing to tape her having surgery. The patient doesn't smoke, is generally healthy, and is in her 50s. The doctors take out giant freaking chunks of black stuff anyway.


Gross.

[17:00]

A doctor says he cannot officially pin the cancer on pollution, but based on his experience he strongly suspects it to be the cause. But, Jing says, it makes her wonder ... she knows lung cancer needs years to develop, not just the past few years. So she requests aerial pictures of China from NASA for the past 10 years. And holy crap, has China been polluted.

2005

2011

[18:00]

An expert shows the intense pollution that's been spread across China since at least 2004. Jing says she's puzzled because she doesn't remember bad haze being a thing back then.

But then the expert sends her this picture from the Beijing airport and asks her what she sees.

She thinks to herself, "That's haze, right?" It seems so obvious.

But then the expert shows her the newspaper headline from that day. It reads, "Fog causes record delays at Beijing airport" ... and it hits her like a ton of bricks.

She says she immediately felt guilty as a reporter. When she was covering pollution stories, she only thought of pollution as what happens when you see factory smokestacks blowing pollutants in the air, not when you're living in a metropolitan place like Beijing.

"At the time, I was no longer a reporter, but an eyewitness," Jing says.

[19:00]

But what about pollution while Jing was growing up? People in China all grew up on coal stoves to stay warm, so why didn't they all have cancer?

Her friend showed her a survey from 1976-1981 that proved the correlation between coal pollution and death. But this report remained internal.

[21:11]

Here Jing shows a series of pictures of each season. And what she has to say is so powerful that I'm going to literally translate here:

"A person, any living thing should live as such:

When spring comes, the doors are left open, welcoming the cool breeze, the smell of fresh flowers, the colors of spring. Sometimes when you encounter fresh rain, or fog, you find it hard to resist the temptation to breathe deeply and feel the crisp air and refreshing moisture enter your lungs.

In the fall, you want to just find a loved one, and do nothing but laze around all day under the clear autumn sunlight.

Come winter time, you want to run outside and watch your kid stick their tongue out to catch the falling snow, and you'd tell them about the wonder of nature and life.

But today, every day I wake up, first thing I do is look at the Air Quality Index app on my phone. Use it to arrange my day. I wear my mask shopping, buying groceries, meeting with friends. I use tape to cover every window frame. When I take my kid out to get vaccines, I get scared when she so much as giggles for fear she's breathing in more pollution.











Honestly, I am not afraid of dying. I just don't want to live this way anymore.


So whenever someone asks me, 'Why are you doing all of this anyway?' I tell them this is personal beef between me and the haze. I want to know where it's coming from. I want to get to the bottom of this."


Wow.

[23:00-25:00]

Jing turns her attention to finding out where all the pollution comes from. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority comes from human activity. PM2.5 has existed since the dawn of time, but it has accelerated as a result of human activity.

60% of PM2.5 in China comes from burning coal and oil. As nations like Germany and England industrialized, they faced dire consequences from the pollution they produced. Eventually, the United States and Japan faced similar crises. And today, developing countries such as India, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are all wrestling with it.

China, with its massive scale and rapid development, has created massive consumption of oil and coal. Worse still, the combination of burning BOTH oil and coal has created unprecedented levels of toxicity.

[25:00-28:00]

If the whole world has to burn coal, Jing asks, why is China's particular pollution problem special? It turns out China has burned AS MUCH COAL AS THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED.

The last time a nation burned this much coal, it was England. Here Jing goes through the history of the prosperity England enjoyed as it industrialized on the back of its coal consumption. But, she reminds her audience, the English paid a heavy, heavy price for doing so. In 1952, a short 63 years ago, a confluence of events created London's Great Smog, which ultimately killed 12,000 people and sickened about 100,000 others. The images of England from that time are not unlike China today.

[27:46]

After the crisis in 1952, Jing explains, Western countries cut back on their coal consumption significantly and were able to begin improving the air. But this happened just as China began the gradual process of opening itself up again. China had closed itself off for so long and had become so poor, it desperately needed something to catapult itself back into the global economy. China chose coal.

Where is all this coal being used? The vast majority is in Hebei province, a leading producer of steel in China.

Jing went to visit Tangshan, a large industrial city in Hebei, in October of last year. She went first with representatives from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and tried to get some drone footage to catch illegal activity ... but the haze was too heavy to get an actual view:

So they resorted to making some surprise visits. What they got on tape was shocking, to say the least:

Seriously, those flames are just straight-up burning, with fumes trapped under the ceiling.

[31:00]

After Jing got all this footage and evidence of illegal activity, none of these factories faced any discipline whatsoever. When she asked the MEP representative why, he referred her to their boss. She sits down with him for an interview where she asks him why nothing was done.

The reason he gives her? The factories have gotten too big to fail. He asks her if she could make the decision to shut them down and eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, essentially destroying the economy of the entire province in the process.

[33:00]

While this was happening in northern China, Jing would often talk to her friend in the south who would claim to be relatively unscathed from the crisis. But Jing quickly points out that while the south didn't have to deal with coal, per se, if you look at a map of all of the steel plants (red), power plants (green), and concrete plants (blue) in the eastern coastal region of China, you see a different story. In Jiangsu province, for example, there's a power plant every 30 km.

[33:42]

Then she shows this map of which factories were emitting pollution above the legal limit.


Yiiiiiiiiiikes.

[34:00]

What are some other consequences of this massive coal consumption? What happens when you use up all of the cleaner coal? You burn the cheap stuff. And what does that cheap stuff, known as "lignite," look like? Check this out:


Getting coal in your stocking is bad enough. Imagine if you got a lump of this crap.

Lignite doesn't look anything like coal. But the real problem with it is that it burns so inefficiently that almost 50% of it burns up into ashes without producing any usable energy.

So what's the big deal with crappy coal? Well, in 2013, a factory opened in Harbin. On its first day of operation, the PM2.5 index hit 1,000.

This was a scene from Harbin that day:



At the time, there were no limits and no regulations. Factories just burned that crappy coal and set the fumes into the air. The 12 million people of Harbin were blanketed in haze, like a big concrete ceiling locking them in.

[35:39]

Jing points out that China isn't alone in using lignite. Germany is also a big user of it. The big difference is that coal, unlike lignite, can be cleaned. England washes 95% of its coal, while in China, less than half of the coal burned is washed, which produces all kinds of inefficient crap (to use a technical term). And it's killing people.

A lot of the coal in China is burned by individuals. In Beijing, the PM2.5 index is 25 times higher during the winter because of coal burning. She talks about a woman suffering from lung cancer who was coughing up blood. The woman was so weak she could not even shoo the flies that flew around her. So she asked people to put fly paper on her stomach.

Here Jing shares a photo of a man standing with pictures of all the family members he's lost to lung cancer:

And a photo showing that many houses simply have nobody left to live in them:

Cobwebs. Cobwebs everywhere.

We often hear that China is a developing country and protecting the environment is a luxury it can't afford right now. But those in China who are the most vulnerable are the poor and voiceless, and they need the rest of the country to stand up for them and protect them.

[37:00]

She then speaks with some experts who tell her that if China can reduce its coal consumption or clean its coal, that will massively reduce its pollution problem. If China simply properly enforced EXISTING standards, there would be a massive 60% drop in carbon emissions. The respect of the laws and regulations always comes down to execution.

[39:00]

If the coal pollution is taken care of, what else is exacerbating the problem? Oil.

The vast majority of oil usage is in automobiles. In 2010, Beijing added 800,000 cars in a SINGLE YEAR. So it makes sense that Beijing's #1 pollutant is emissions from automobiles.

Is it simply a matter of lots of cars equals lots of pollution? Not necessarily, Jing says. Tokyo has just as many cars but doesn't suffer from the same pollution. That's because Tokyo has great public transportation and only 6% of people drive. Compare that to 40% of people in Beijing ... and sitting in that traffic makes the 405 in L.A. look like the autobahn.

[41:30]

Chai Jing and her family agreed to only drive their car in a limited number of situations. Her husband commutes to work on his bike. But this is what the bike lane in their neighborhood looks like:

She makes a good point here, though: This is not an issue about Chinese people being particularly law-breaking — this is an issue of enforcement. Human nature is all pretty similar, she says; it's just whether the actions have consequences.

Next, she shows a picture of London before and after it regulated parking:

The left is before regulations, the middle is after introducing metered parking with penalties, and the image on the right? That's when they increased fees.

[42:27]

But car lovers have another question. If cars really drive the most pollution, why is it still so polluted in the middle of the night? Chai says she had the same question until officials gave her data that showed consistent spikes in pollution around midnight each night. Curious, she set out with a camera crew to get some answers.

As she joined the police in inspections, truck after 18-wheeler truck had stickers certifying approved levels of emissions filtering for diesel fuel, but none of them actually had the filters.



A single diesel truck with no filtering pollutes 500 times as much as trucks that meet regulatory standards. While diesel trucks account for only 17% of overall oil consumption, they produce about 70% of the pollution. And the exhaust from diesel pipes is even more toxic.

There are no greater victims here than the truck drivers themselves, who have among the highest rates of cancer. It seems cruel and unusual to go after the drivers for not having the filters, considering they used their hard-earned money to buy the trucks — trucks that have officially certified filtering stickers on them.

Jing concludes: Perhaps it's more reasonable to go after the car manufacturers.

[45:00]

Jing calls up one of these car manufacturers and presents her evidence that there are filter-certified stickers on trucks that don't have filters. He fumbles around without explanation until she finally gets him to outright admit that he's saying they put on the wrong stickers, and if someone wants the car, well, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

Industries always have their own excuses, Jing says, but if everyone knows this and we have the laws, why can't we go after them? She cites several laws and explains various technical loopholes that, unfortunately, allow this behavior to continue.

Her next step is figuring out which enforcing body should close the loopholes. And, again, each of the ministries passes the buck.

Everyone she talked to basically said, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

She interviews a guy from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and goes hard after him to get an explanation for why they don't prosecute people under these regulations.

He dances around the answer a bit, explaining that each group basically does its duty but the real enforcement falls in the middle. Jing is totally flabbergasted and tells him straight, "So all these years you guys have not used teeth at all in enforcing the law!" This is a Chinese phrase used to describe tough talk but no ability to follow through. His comeback? "Forget not using teeth. I don't want to even open my mouth for fear that people will see I don't have any teeth at all!"

Her face kinda says it all.

She then calls the truck manufacturer back, and he explains: "If the MEP were to enforce the laws, I guarantee you I'd meet regulations by tomorrow. But if they aren't coming after me, I would never meet requirements. Otherwise, if I were the only one meeting regulations, and the next guy is selling fraudulent cars, then I'd go out of business!" After that, when she asked the MEP if this was reasonable, he agreed.

Worse still, she says, they tested the quality of the diesel fuel at the truck stops. Chinese oil measured 25 times worse than European counterparts. Her friends sent her a complicated chart that basically said China's oil is routinely 3-4 times lower in quality. If China could bring it up even one level, it would drop emissions by 10%.

So what's the big deal with crappy oil? Fumes from evaporation. Evaporation? Is that a big deal? Well, her friend sent her this infrared video:

According to her, there's more pollution in Beijing from evaporated fumes than there is from car exhaust pipes. Worse still, the fumes are a big contributor of PM2.5 pollutants.

So why doesn't China raise its oil quality?

When Jing asked people in the oil industry, they told her it's because the government standards are so low that there's no incentive to improve.

When Jing went after the government, what answer did she get back? Over 67% of one of the standards committees is OIL INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES. One of the other committees is over 90%.

This is dizzying. No wonder things haven't gotten better. Nobody is taking responsibility, and there are so many loopholes in this thing.

[53:22]

Being the investigative reporter that she is, Jing went to China's director of oil standards, who, oh by the way, also used to be the chief engineer for the state-owned oil monopoly Sinopec:

Jing gets right to it and asks him why there are so many oil industry insiders setting the standards.

He claims that standards shouldn't be set by industry outsiders who don't understand the details.

Incredulous, she asks, "You're saying the Ministry of Environmental Protection doesn't understand?!" No, he says, he doesn't think they do.

Again, her face really says it all:

Who should set the standards? Jing tells him: "If you guys set the standards, and then when it comes time to talk about raising the quality, you guys say the national standards (that you set) are too low, and then you give all these excuses. People will no longer believe you."

She goes on to explain how other countries have transparent debate, thorough interaction between governing bodies and the oil industry, and bring these decisions to a vote. She wants to know if he would be open to that sort of a process. He claims to be.

Jing challenges him further — she asks if he would be more transparent with China's process. This is where he says something truly ridiculous: He thinks that the public already mistrusts the oil industry, so if he were to be more transparent, they would only see what they would want to see. So they're better off not having the discussion in the first place.

Why not go ahead and raise standards then? He claims there may be too many unknown ramifications and too much potential economic impact. He isn't ready to bear such responsibility.

Jing's reaction is spot-on:

Then she lists the incredible revenue and profits of Sinopec and asks him, "For such a large and profitable state-owned enterprise, why can't it step up to take more responsibility to society?"

(Are you sitting down?) He says: "Sinopec is big. Really big. Just like a person, it's very fat. Excessively fat."

(What does that even mean?!?!?!)

Jing concludes that all businesses optimize for their self-interests. That makes sense. That's the nature of industry, after all.

[56:25]

Jing was still curious about how other countries set their standards.

Environmental regulatory bodies set most countries' standards (although, yes, perhaps with input and conversation with industry).

So why are China's so heavily controlled by industry? Jing points to some historical reasons.

In the 1960s, gas was so rare that you'd see buses with giant bags of propane tied to the top:

When oil was first imported to China, the MEP didn't even exist, so standards were set by a subsidiary of Sinopec. Over the years, as things evolved, the heavy influence of Sinopec always remained.

But as the public awareness for environmental issues has grown, more and more pressure has been put on Sinopec and the MEP to raise standards. In the past couple of years, the mix has gotten better. Every country declares their values by which they strike that balance. Jing strikes a hopeful note, pointing out that the trends are starting to move in the right direction.

[58:32]

Another shocking thing Jing didn't realize when she started her research was that harbors and waterways were completely unregulated:

Boats like this one use the worst-of-the-worst oil — completely unfiltered. In the worst places in the harbors, you can actually reach your hand into the water and scoop out pollutants. Yuck.

Even if you're not near waterways or airports, another threat exists: construction vehicles. Jing and her crew followed a billowing truck. The truck stopped by a gas station, if you could call it that:

Jing went in after the driver, and when they encountered the manager, he refused to produce any permits. They kept arguing with him, she explains, and he kept giving ridiculous excuses. She kept countering before finally declaring that they were with MEP officials, and therefore had the right to demand this of him.

He counters, "You have the obligation, but you don't have the right." Jing and her crew were so stunned, they had no comeback for him.

From coal to oil, there is massive consumption. The quality is low. China doesn't clean it. When Chinese citizens emit, she says, they don't have the proper controls in place. She doesn't understand why. But, she says, the manager's crazy response suddenly brought it home.

[1:02:00]

(Mike's note: This part of the documentary features a bunch of interview scenes in which Jing calls all these guys out. They're all mansplaining and trying to talk down to this "little girl" with their political talking points, and she basically cuts through all their B.S., catches them way off guard, and connects all the ludicrous dots of what they say. They have weird, embarrassed faces the whole time. It's a really fun segment.)

When Jing interviewed this guy, she asked him if he would dare do construction without the proper permit. "No way," he says.

"If you had no operating license or tax ID, would you dare operate?" She asks. "No way. No way," he answers.

"Then why do you proceed with emissions without the proper permitting from the MEP?" she asks.

"Um, well, we're working on it. We'll have it eventually."

In perhaps the crowning interview, she shows a bunch of scenes of the utterly disgusting crap outside and talks about the reeking odors before sitting down with another guy, who she asks about the horrendous odors from outside.

Gross.

His answer?

To which the audience is all LOLZ:

She then breaks down how much you can save by not getting up to standards on steel, coal, diesel, and imported oil:


The graphic shows that it costs 100 yuan per ton to produce steel that meets standards. It costs 156 yuan to wash coal and 20,000 yuan to get trucks that are actually filtered.

10 years ago, Jing says, she'd wonder what that smell was floating through the air ... now she knows it's the smell of money.

[1:05:08]

Everyone's talking about environmental protection, but who wants to destroy our economy?

This chart shows GDP growth in China since 1980.

Jing returned to the steel plants that she first visited 10 years ago and was shocked to find that piles of steel that had been there for a long time were rusty.

She asked a worker how business was. He pointed around and asked her whether she saw anyone coming in to pick up goods. Nope. These businesses are selling the lowest end of products and competing entirely on volume.

[1:05:51]

Here, Jing shows what goes into producing one ton of steel:

It requires 600 kg of coal and 3-6 tons of water. The process produces 1.53 kg of sulfur dioxide and 1 kg of soot. Yiiiiiiiikes.

The profit from that one ton of steel? It's not even enough to buy an egg from a street vendor.

Yet all of these industries are still massively subsidized by the government. One company was receiving 2 billion yuan (~$318 million USD) every other year. So these zombie businesses are voraciously consuming resources while creating massive risk for the economy. Still, they continue to expand.

[1:07:49]

Jing recently received a letter from a young girl asking for her help. The nearby plant was threatening to tear down her home in order to expand. Her dad refused and was beat up.

That girl? She's the little girl Jing interviewed 10 years ago (as seen in the first 10 minutes of the documentary) who had never seen stars or clouds.

Jing asked her how her health was. She said: "I don't have the time to care about my health right now. I just want me and my family to have a place to live." Luckily, when Jing checked back with her, the boss of the plant had gotten arrested. So that particular disaster was averted.

But these industries continue to expand and receive support. The reason? Growth. Simply put, when urbanization increases by just 1%, it justifies all the production.

But a Tsinghua University professor told her that cities in China have also reached a tipping point. She thought of to her personal life and the continued urbanization around her. That expansion must be continuing...

Her friend encouraged her to return home and take a look.

[1:09:57]

What she found when she returned to Shanxi was construction site after construction site, real estate ad after real estate ad, and lots of empty buildings.


She stayed in what was billed as a five-star hotel — in the presidential suite, no less. But when she arrived, she was greeted by a flashlight in the unlit garage and led throughout the hallways of an unlit hotel to her room. It was so deserted that the hotel did not even have power.

When she returned to Beijing and discussed this, she learned that Shanxi was a microcosm of what was going on around the country.

China has 1.3 billion people, but if you added up all of the occupancies of all of these buildings, it would equal 3.4 billion.

Jing speaks romantically about the positive impact urbanization has had in her own life — she was able to leave small-town Shanxi and come to Beijing to study and start a career. If it weren't for urbanization, she says, she'd probably still be in Shanxi flipping an abacus and eking out a life.

Cities gave us freedom and gave China 30 years of incredible prosperity. But if we don't change our model, she says, experts predict China will be consuming such large amounts of resources and producing so much pollution that it will run out of capacity to absorb the emissions before it runs out of the resources.

The haze is just getting started. Traffic is just getting started.

[1:14:49]

During the APEC summit (during which the government underwent massive efforts to clean the air), Jing's husband brought her to a place where, in his youth, his father often took him to go ice skating, swimming, and fishing.

He felt the beauty and elegance of this proud, historic city. They sat there soaking it in like young kids looking at the last piece of candy, she says, knowing that if they didn't eat it, it would melt ... but if they ate it, it would be no more. It's that mixed feeling of excitement, hesitation, and wistfulness.

She shows a powerful, nostalgic sequence of people recalling the Beijing of old, the Beijing where they grew up:


Beautiful.

[1:15:53]

She asked an expert, "What would it take to maintain the blue skies we enjoyed during the APEC summit?" He said that relative to 2013, China would need to reduce sulfur dioxide by 47%, nitrogen oxides by 52%, and PM2.5 by 44% — basically, remove over 50% of the pollutants.

[1:17:30]

As dire as the situation in China seems, Jing turns to history to find hope. With all of its traffic and its geographical layout, she realizes that the Beijing of today is not dissimilar to the Los Angeles of old.

She shows a picture of a gag gift from back in the day that jokingly captures its former reality:

But, she points out, while the number of cars in L.A. has tripled since 1970, emissions have dropped by 75%.

Jing went to L.A. to find out how this was possible. She observed the lack of public transportation, much like Beijing, and the heavy reliance on cars. And, of course, the L.A. traffic:

But look at those clear skies!

Then she witnessed checkpoint inspections, much like back in China. All the trucks are required to install filters that reduce particle emissions by 99%.

Jing witnessed them catching a driver who did not have the filter installed — he was fined $1,000. She found out the driver takes home about $4,000 per month. He was fined a quarter of his income for not having the filter installed. If a driver has multiple offenses, the driver is not able to renew the truck's tags, eliminating his or her income. The miracle of law enforcement!

A California official tells her that 45% of the people want to be good citizens and comply, 45% do it because they don't want to get caught and fined, and 10% say: "I don't care. Catch me if you can."

She cites the high number of citations and fines for non-compliance:

Jing reiterates that human nature is the same everywhere. No matter where you go, there are going to be those who want to cut corners. But if proper enforcement can bring 90% of the people into line, there is hope. And just like they said at the car factories in China, if there's no enforcement, 90% of the cars coming off the factory line will be out of compliance.

[1:22:40]

Jing explains that back when the U.S. was raising emission standards, the old industry complained. Car manufacturers said it would destroy their business and threaten the economy. They sued the EPA and fought the change.

But! In the meantime, foreign manufacturers raised their hands and said they could meet those higher standards. Once the U.S. companies heard this, they quickly got in line with the changes, even though they ceded a large chunk of the market share along the way.

Jing went to the EPA and asked if it faced accusations and pressure for destroying domestic industries. The EPA rep's answer: "Environmental protection is not a burden, but an opportunity for innovation. If you're merely trying to protect your losses, you will not be able to innovate. Government's role is to set the standard and a level playing field. If you create competition, it will win the market."

[1:23:28]

Next, Jing asks, "If China is such a mass consumer of coal, how will we ever wean ourselves off it?"

People say it took London 40-50 years to recover from the Great Smog of '52. So will it take China as long? Jing says she points those people to this chart showing that ACTUALLY the most significant drop in pollution came immediately after the crisis:

She went to London to find out more.

With strict regulations and aggressive enforcement, London was able to turn a massive tragedy around.

Jing shows provocative footage of coal plants being blown up and destroyed, plants that once offered the same tens of thousands of jobs that the plants in China offer today.

The percentage of GDP that the coal industry was responsible for shrunk massively as well. She talks to officials who explain that 100 years ago, London was a place that had a million miners, compared to tens of thousands in China. An industry on its way out was replaced by new industries coming in. And in doing so, London reclaimed its blue skies.

[1:26:14]

Interestingly, on her trip to London, the most compelling artifact she found was a video made by the Gas Council called "Guilty Chimneys."

Amazing what a little competition will do.

In London, Jing was told that one of the keys to turning the corner is for the government to not subsidize those old, crumbling industries that are on their way out, but to instead invest in innovation in new opportunities and a competitive playing field that will create the next wave of jobs and industries.

Jing also wondered why China wasn't more aggressively pursuing natural gas as an energy source. In her research, she found that there's high potential for natural gas, but it's not being drilled for.

Curious, she asked an expert why that is. He explained that the largest natural gas producing country, the United States, has 6,300 natural gas and petroleum companies. China has only three, and 70% of production comes from one company. The U.S. has 160 natural gas pipeline companies. China, again, only has three, and 70% of natural gas production lives in, you guessed it, a single company: Sinapec.

If China opens those markets, it could create competition and flip the script.

[1:30:22]

As Jing reflects on her investigative process, she says that China's reform and opening back up after being choked off from the global economy for so long wasn't what she originally envisioned as a solution. She pictured it as a small bird hatching from an egg, immediately becoming a marvelous new life.

But through her research, she learned it's more like a cicada shedding its old skin, inching out bit by bit, and energy is the last bit of skin to shed, the last part being particularly difficult.

She says energy is an area that's been rife with corruption. She shows this chart of recently deposed corrupt officials in the energy sector:

That is ... a lot of corruption.

To change it, she says, requires a shift in how the government views the environment and potential energy opportunities, as well as the systemic changes needed to make a difference.

But the government can't turn this thing around all on its own.It relies on each and every one of us. Our choices. Our will.

[1:31:38]

Jing says she has learned the power of transparency and has been encouraged in recent years with the government's investment and transparency in reporting air quality indexes. But, she says, we should not waste that money.

She brings up a downloadable app that shows factories that are exceeding emissions standards and encourages people to report these by calling a hotline or calling them out on social media.

Last year, Jing joined some community meetings where they challenged officials to require these companies to self-report emissions levels. Finally, officials conceded and companies were required to self-report or face a fine. And citizens had the right to submit an information request to compel them to report.

Tides are shifting, momentum is building.

[1:33:40]

Jing then shares an animation that demonstrates what everyday citizens can do to live greener lives and report offensive behavior through hotlines, or even @-replying to the department directly.

Jing shares a recent story of when she walked by a construction site in her neighborhood and noticed a giant pile of unsecured dirt.

She knew that as the wind blew, it would kick up particles in the air. So she approached the construction workers and spoke to the boss, and they immediately covered it up. From start to finish, just a few minutes.

The worker later told her that his boss saw she had a camera phone and feared getting exposed online, so he reacted quickly.

Chai Jing finishes her story on a really strong and bold note, rallying people into action. This truly is a remarkable piece of filmmaking by a remarkable woman.

Sponsored

5 ways people are going "All In" this week

From the silly to the sentimental, there are so many ways people like to go “all in” on something. Here are our five favorite examples this week.

True

When you hear the words “all in,” what do you think? You might picture a color-coordinated, fairy-themed surprise proposal that took months to create, or maybe you think of a singer who went on stage and nailed the perfect high note in front of everyone (like this girl). Whatever you picture, the idea is the same: Going “all in” means doing something with total commitment—literally giving it your “all” and going completely over the top. No second guessing, no holding back—just full-throttle enthusiasm with some creativity and flair thrown in. That’s how we get those viral internet moments we can’t stop watching.

When people decide to go “all in,” something special usually happens as a result, and we’re here to show you how. This week, we’ve found the very best examples of people going “all in” across the Internet—moments where passion, creativity, and commitment take center stage. Follow along and feel inspired.

Hamilton superfans 

@itz.unique POV: You seen Hamilton the first night in theaters #hamiltonmusical #fyp #relatable #hamilton ♬ original sound - Uniii 😜

You already know we love a good Hamilton reenactment. This past weekend, though, Hamilton fans took their love for the musical to a whole other level. As theatres released the filmed stage production in honor of the musical’s tenth anniversary on Broadway, theatre kids everywhere showed up in costume and belted out every single word (it’s okay to sing in the theatre this time, by the way! Hamilton creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda totally said we could). Some theatres sang along quietly, some chimed in loudly at the emotional parts, and some theatres truly went all in, staging elaborate reproductions of the scenes in the aisles, in time with the music. A bunch of theatre kids totally nerding out together, having fun, and celebrating good art? We love to see it.

Everyone's love of Pumpkin Spice Lattes

@deangelodbyrd It’s hereeee 😂🍂 #pumpkinspicelatte #fall2025 #funnyvideo #silly #funnydance @Starbucks ♬ original sound - DeAngelo

You know it's fall when you start seeing those plastic cups everywhere. That's right—it's Pumpkin Spice Latte season. Everyone is drinking them. Everyone is posting about them. Everyone is figuring out the perfect PSL pairing, whether that's pumpkin spice matcha lattes or just drinking a PSL curled up on the couch watching some spooky movies. (How about all of the above?)

Here's our recommendation: Pumpkin spice lattes pair perfectly with All In snack bars—specifically the Madagascar Vanilla + Almond option. It's got honey, it's got pumpkin seeds, and it's even got tons of fiber so you're getting some nutrition along with all the deliciousness. Don't take our word for it, though: Click here to try it yourself (for free).

This rendition of the Happy Birthday song

@kamoramakaylee Happy 84th birthday to our dad #tbt ♬ original sound - Kamora

There’s singing the Happy Birthday song, and then there’s singing the Happy Birthday song. This group of sisters did the latter. For their father’s birthday, they presented him with a cake (aww) and then launched into an embellished musical production of the last two lines that would put Whitney Houston to shame. The girls truly went all in, but perhaps the best part of this entire video is their dad,sitting wide-eyed at the table and gritting his teeth until the performance is over. (“He’s fine,” someone said in the comments section. “He lost his hearing ten birthdays ago.”)

Llama costumes

@kristeninmn Some of the costumes from the Minnesota State Fair’s 4-H Llama-Alpaca Costume Contest! #minnesotastatefair #mnstatefair #exploremn #onlyinmn #stpaulminnesota ♬ Mr. Blue Sky - Electric Light Orchestra

Every year at the Minnesota State Fair, the 4-H Llama-Alpaca Costume Contest steals the show. In it, participants dress their llamas in wildly imaginative costumes—everything from a sea anemone to a bucket of popcorn to Buzz Lightyear from the movie Toy Story—and transform the livestock barn into a whimsical runway. Every glittery cape, hand-painted prop, or themed outfit is a testament to their creativity, their time and effort, and most importantly their love for animals. All of it is on full display and it’s seriously impressive work. You can tell when it comes to their animals (and creativity), Minnesotans don’t hold back.

This dog who's totally faking it. 

@binkythechichi2

The king of drama

♬ original sound - cass

Okay, you have to give this guy some respect—he really doesn’t want his owner to go to work and he’s found an absolutely genius way of showing it. As soon as her alarm goes off in the morning, TikTok creator Cassidy Butler shared that her chihuahua Binky runs to the front door and actually starts faking injuries to get her to stay home with him (and sometimes, she admits, it works). Binky is absolutely committed, holding up his paw as though it were injured, plus shivering and even squinting one eye to show just how injured he is. He’s almost perfectly convincing—until Cassidy offers to take him outside to play and he momentarily breaks character. Oops! Still, we respect his dedication to the craft.

Snag your free (!!) snack bars here while this deal lasts. Just pick up a box at Sprouts and text a pic of your receipt to get it for free. Enoy!

Culture

A hundred years ago, everyone wore hats. In 1960, they suddenly stopped. Here's why.

Old footage from the '50s shows men, women, and children wearing hats everywhere they go.

When did everyone stop wearing hats?

It was everywhere. Men, women, and even children did it every time they left the house. If you see old newsreel footage of men in the office or on commuter trains from the advent of the motion picture camera to the early ‘60s, nearly everyone is wearing a hat. Hats were just as common for women in that era. For a woman to go out without a hat in the first half of the 20th century was akin to going out without clothes.

The funny thing is that everyone’s headgear is so similar in the old-timey footage that it makes previous generations look like big-time conformists. Then, in the early ‘60s, everything changed, and men and women started to go out in public with their hair exposed. Why did such a big aspect of fashion seem to change overnight?

Warmbru Curiosity investigated the question recently in a popular YouTube video. Warmbru’s channel is a lighthearted look at some of the more unusual people and events from our history and how they have influenced the world in which we live.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Why did people stop wearing hats?

Warmbru says fashion changed dramatically after World War II, when people in developed countries began to care less about expressing their social status. “This was especially true among the younger generation the rise of youth culture in the 1950s and 1960s emphasized rebellion against traditional norms, including formal dress codes,” the YouTuber says.

Mad Men, Don Draper, Jon Hamm, hats, mens fashion, men's hats, 1950s Don Draper from AMC's "Mad Men" Image via "Mad Men" AMC

Another big reason for the change in fashion was technology. Cars became the preferred mode of transportation for many after World War II and indoor environments became more hospitable. “People spent far less time exposed to the elements as people increasingly moved to urban areas and started using cars,” Warmbru says. “The practicality of wearing hats diminishes. Hats can be cumbersome in cars and on public transport, improvements in heating and air conditioning reduce the need for hats to provide warmth.”

Warmbru adds that President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, rarely wore a hat and his decision to go bareheaded became associated with modernity. Further, in 1963, the mop-topped Beatles proudly flaunted their hatless heads as they shook them while singing, “Wooooo.” Hat-wearing among women began to decline around the same time as the restrictive and complex headgear clashed with the burgeoning women’s liberation movement.

Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, hats, men, men's fashion, 1960's, 1950's John F. Kennedy with his family Image via Wikicommons

The decline in hat purchases meant that manufacturers closed and the headgear became harder to come by. This reduced availability further contributed to the decline in hat-wearing. As fewer people wore hats, there became a greater demand for high-quality hair products and services. “Why spend a fortune at the hairdressers or the barbers just to cover the end result with a hat?” Warmbru asks.

Ultimately, there were many reasons why people stopped wearing hats. It appears that it was a combination of technology, influential people such as Kennedy and The Beatles, and the overwhelming mood of change that swept most of the Western world in the 1960s. But if one thing is true about fashion, it goes in cycles. So, it seems that hats may be ready for their big comeback.

This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.

Sandra visiting E’s family in Georgia (2023)

True
Levi Strauss Foundation

Sandra McAnany isn’t one to sit on the sidelines. A 58-year-old grandmother from Wisconsin, McAnany spends her days teaching soft skills classes to adults and spending time with her family. Outside the classroom, however, she’s taken on a role that’s helping people in a big way: serving as a humanitarian parole sponsor and personally taking on the financial responsibility of supporting families fleeing from persecution, violence, and instability.

Since 2023, McAnany has welcomed 17 migrants—11 adults and six children through the CHNV humanitarian parole program, which allows individuals and families from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to live and work temporarily in the United States with the support of an approved sponsor.

“Everyone has their own views and perspectives, but every person I sponsored is thriving and doing well here,” McAnany said.

McAnany didn’t know any of the parolees before sponsoring them, but she had a commitment to helping families from Venezuela specifically, hoping to reunite them with their families who were already living in the United States. After “praying a lot along the way” and communicating with the applicants through WhatsApp, she decided to apply as a sponsor and help them settle into the United States.

“I have a bedroom and a bathroom in my basement,” McAnany says. “My door is open and will always be open for any of the people I sponsored, if they ever have a need for housing.”

Sandra’s granddaughter, E’s daughter, and another friend at an indoor park (July 2025)

At the time, McAnany decided to volunteer as a sponsor to make friends and help other people through hardship. Now, her mission has grown: Seeing how humanitarian parole programs have changed her parole beneficiaries’ lives—as well as her own—for the better.

Humanitarian parole: A long history

Humanitarian parole programs are nothing new. Since 1952, both Democratic and Republican administrations have used humanitarian parole to provide a safer, lawful pathway for noncitizens to enter and live temporarily in the United States. In recent years, through different programs, people from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti, and other countries have been able to come to the U.S. to escape urgent crises in their own countries, such as political instability or war.

Coming to the United States through humanitarian parole is no easy feat. The process has its own strict criteria and involves extensive applications and vetting for both beneficiaries and their sponsors. Parolees don’t need to qualify for any other immigration benefit like asylum, but they need to meet the standard for humanitarian parole and successfully pass vetting requirements.

According to Refugees International, 532,000 people have been granted parole through the CHNV program.

A life-changing experience

From the moment she met her first parole beneficiaries at the airport—two families —McAnany already knew it would be a life-changing experience. “It immediately felt like family, like we were lifelong friends,” she said. But she could also sense that it was a culture shock for the parolees. On the way home from the airport, McAnany pulled into a nearby McDonald's and encouraged them to order dinner. Hearing the word “Big Mac,” the families smiled in recognition.

Despite the culture shock, McAnany’s parole beneficiaries had to adapt quickly to life in the United States. Once they were settled, McAnany worked “nonstop” to help the families acclimate to their new lives, answering questions about school and vaccinations while also helping them create resumes, search for jobs, and find English classes online.

It was through this process that McAnany realized just how resilient people could be, and was amazed “not only how hard it was for individuals to leave their loved ones behind, but the amount of work they did to come to the country and remain here.” McAnany also realized how fortunate she was to have her own family living nearby. “I can’t imagine any one of us leaving a country and being apart for an unknown length of time,” she said.

Eventually, and as circumstances changed—one of the parolees found a new job in another city, for example, and was able to move out. But no matter the length of time they spent with each other, McAnany says that with every parolee they formed a bond built for life. One woman, who she refers to as ‘E,’ has even become “like an adopted daughter.” McAnany has traveled to Georgia, where E now lives, three times to visit her.

Uncertain ground: What’s next for humanitarian parole programs

Despite being a critical part of immigration policy in the United States for the last 73 years, humanitarian parole programs are under threat. Immigrant justice nonprofits Justice Action Center and Human Rights First are currently suing the federal government to protect humanitarian parole programs and allow parole beneficiaries to remain in the country for the duration of their parole. McAnany is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

One of the ladies Sandra sponsored from Venezuela and her partner during Sandra’s first visit to meet her (December 2023)

Participating in the lawsuit has only further bolstered McAnany’s belief in and support for humanitarian parole programs. She hopes the lawsuit will be successful, she says, so that parole beneficiaries and their families can finally have some stability.

“We don’t know what the future is,” she says, “but I want to be optimistic and hopeful that every person I sponsored will be able to stay here safely in the U.S. and continue to thrive.”

This article is part of Upworthy’s “The Threads Between U.S.” series that highlights what we have in common thanks to the generous support from the Levi Strauss Foundation, whose grantmaking is committed to creating a culture of belonging.


Motherhood

Mom shares the frustrating difference between stay-at-home and working parents

"It is interesting to notice how tied we are to corporate-style success."

via EclecticHomeSchooling/TikTok (used with permission)

Syd explains one of the most frustrating parts of being a stay-at-home-mom.

We all need a pat on the back every once in a while, someone to let us know we're doing a good job. There are many ways for people with careers to feel validated. You can get a raise, a promotion, a great review from your manager, or a professional award. You can also be someone respected in your profession and a mentor to younger people entering your field. These forms of validation help someone feel valuable and accomplished and are all tangible in some way. You can say, "I’m now the vice president of manufacturing," "I won the Excellence in Sales Award," or "I have a larger number on my paycheck."

Syd, a stay-at-home mom named @eclectichomeschooling on TikTok, shared that, unfortunately, moms who work in the home have a hard time finding that same feeling of validation.

stay-at-home mom, motherhood How do you measure success as a stay-at-home mom?Giphy

“Something that I think that a lot of people don’t realize about being a stay-at-home mom, whether you are a homeschool mom or your kids are young and you’re staying home with them during those years, is that there’s no measurement of success. There’s no metric,” she begins her video.

“There’s no one saying, ‘Congratulations, you have been promoted; you are the top of the top of this skill.’ None of that,” she continued. There is no award for an outstanding stay-at-home mom, and there is no manager to give her a review or promotion.

She says that being a good mother to her kids “feels good” and “makes us happy” but argues that it isn’t something you can “hold” or “write down.”

@eclectichomeschooling

It’s everyone’s favorite time of the month! Where I post insane, 3-5 minute, PMS ramblings about motherhood! Okay love you, bye! 😎


“We’re going on eight years of not being able to measure [success],” she continued. “I think that that’s a thing that nobody really talks about or that we don’t really get to talk about with each other. Your partner goes to work: they get promoted, they get raises, they complete their work for the day and they ... get to be like, ‘OK, I succeeded.’ But my [work] is just constant, all of the time, and there’s no metric for it.”

The dishes that Syd cleans will be dirty the next day. The laundry she folds on Monday will be worn on Tuesday and rewashed on Friday.

motherhood, homemaking, stay-at-home mom, laundry Work done in the home is never "done" and often goes unrecognized. Photo credit: Canva

Although Syd has yet to find a solution to this problem, she sees other ways to get the validation she craves. “It’s hard, especially because a lot of us don’t prioritize hobbies for ourselves. That’s a great place for us to find success or a feeling of accomplishment,” she said.

Syd’s video struck a chord with many stay-at-home mothers feeling the same way.

A commenter named Leigh noted that the need for external validation comes from the corporate culture in which Americans are raised. “On my best days, it is interesting to notice how tied we are to corporate-style success. On my worst, it is inescapably crushing,” she wrote in the most popular comment.

“It's the neverending loops that are never complete. We never get the satisfaction of a ‘job well done’ because nothing is ever really done,” Hazel added. “Once I started focusing on my own happiness, it got better.”

According to Love, the lack of praise for a job well done also means that it’s easy to be criticized. “When you’re doing everything right, there’s no praise, etc., but if you do anything wrong or are not perfect, then the issue gets thrown in your face in every way. So you end up feeling like a failure,” she wrote.

Syd told Upworthy that her followers have tried to help her recontextualize her feelings of worth. “Since the video, I’ve had a lot of conversations with moms about how we measure worth by being very wrapped up in productivity through a capitalist lens. It can be tough to divest from that, but it is also so important. Like, what’s a safe and secure childhood worth? Nothing technically, but also the entire world. We do that!” she told Upworthy.

motherhood, stay-at-home mom Validation comes in different ways for stay-at-home moms.Photo credit: Canva

She adds that a few of her followers suggested she should take up martial arts as a hobby. “I’m still pondering that one,” she told Upworthy.

Ultimately, Syd’s realization could have caused her to feel down about herself or resign to a never-ending feeling of being unfulfilled. However, she’s seen it as an opportunity to reevaluate her sense of self-worth and possibly as a reason to branch off into new and exciting hobbies outside her family.

This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.

Andrew Huberman and a woman sleeping.

There is nothing worse than lying in your bed, with your mind racing, and you can’t fall asleep. The longer you lie in bed, the more anxious you get about falling asleep, which makes it even harder to catch some ZZZs. You've tried clearing your mind, but can’t. You’ve tried counting sheep but reached 100. What do you do now?

On a recent Real Time with Bill Maher, neuroscientist Andrew Huberman made an off-the-cuff remark about a sleep hack that he swears by, and it's based on brain research. Huberman is a Stanford University neuroscientist and tenured professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology. He's also the host of the popular podcast Huberman Lab, which focuses on health and science.

How to fall asleep fast

“In fact, if you wake up in the middle of the night and you're having trouble falling back asleep, try just doing some long, extended exhales. And get this, this sounds really weird, but it has a basis in physiology. Keep your eyes closed and just move your eyes from side to side behind your eyelids like this, back and forth,” Huberman told Maher as he moved his eyes from side to side as if he was surveying a vast landscape. “Do some long exhales. I can't promise, but I'm willing to wager like maybe one pinky, that within five minutes or so, you'll be back to sleep.”

- YouTube youtu.be

Andrew Huberman’s hack is based on neuroscience

Huberman explained the exercise in greater detail on Mark Bell's Power Project podcast. In his appearance, he discussed the interesting connection between our eyes and their connection to the amygdala, an almond-shaped part of the brain that controls our emotional response. “Eye movements of that sort actually do suppress the amygdala [to] make people feel calmer, less fearful,” Huberman said. He adds that when we are on a walk, we move our eyes from side to side, to analyze the terrain ahead of us, and the amygdala calms down.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

“But for most people who are sighted, moving your eyes from side to side for 10 to 30 seconds is going to calm you down," Huberman said. "And this makes really good sense because, from an evolutionary perspective, an adaptive perspective, we've always been confronted with interpersonal threats and animal to human threats. Forward movement is the way that you suppress the fear response."

Americans aren’t getting enough sleep

Huberman’s video is important because many Americans need to get more sleep. A 2022 Gallup poll found that only 32% of Americans said they got “excellent” or “very good” sleep; 35% described their sleep as “good”; and 33% said their sleep was “fair” or “poor.”

Sleep is essential to maintaining good health. Getting at least seven hours of sleep a night is great for your memory, focus, emotional regulation, appetite, muscle recovery, and tissue repair. It also reduces the risk of chronic conditions like heart disease and diabetes. It’s great that Huberman shares his hack, which few people would have come up with without a background in neuroscience, to improve their sleep. It’s also another exciting way to show just how interconnected the body is, from eyes to brain and beyond. Sweet dreams.

Millennials, are you victims of "gramnesia"?

If there's one thing we're really good at in 2025, it's giving specific phenomena a catchy, viral name. It’s funny how once a sort of abstract experience gets a name attached to it, it suddenly becomes much easier to understand and relate to. The Internet—and primarily TikTok—has been great for that. Sure, things get out of hand quite easily (like the overuse of “therapy speak”), but there has also been quite a lot of validation and meaningful conversations that have spawned from these overnight buzzwords.

Case and point: “Gramnesia.”

“Gramnesia,” which combines the words “grandparent” and “amnesia,” has been popping up on Reddit discussions for a while now, though the coiner of the term seems unknown. But only recently has it been really gaining traction.

Back in June of 2024, Maryland-based therapist and mom Allie McQuaid, really brought “gramnesia” to the forefront of the conversation when she made an Instagram video all about it.

“I just heard this term called ‘gramnesia’ when grandparents forget what it’s really like having young kids and I can’t stop thinking about how accurate it is,” she said in the clip.

In her caption, McQuaid shared how so many of her clients would get “slammed” by their parents about how different (i.e. “easier”) raising kids was for them whenever they brought their own children around.

These hyperbolic memories are, as McQuaid put it, so “ridiculous” that they've clearly “forgot[ten] what it was really like in those early years of parenthood.”

Some examples of “gramnesia” statements could be:

“You never had tantrums when you were a kid”

“I potty trained you before you were one”

“You were always happy to eat whatever we fed you.”

“You were spanked and turned out fine!”

Clearly, McQuaid’s video struck a chord, because it wasn’t long before people begin chiming in with their own stories of gramnesia:

“My MIL, over the years, loved to act like her children were perfect growing up. I love to tell the stories of her son (my hubby) getting into all kinds of trouble as a kid - oh the shock.”

“*Baby makes any kind of noise* Grandma: "Oh they must be teething!" Me : "Umm she's 4 months old, She isn't teething yet - just has feelings and is you know - A BABY" grandma: ‘well my kids had all their teeth by 4 months’ 😐🤨”

“5 months old and not sleeping through the night? Did you try rice cereal? Baby not walking ? Rice cereal. Baby not in college yet? Have you tried rice cereal?”

“Ugh my dad literally just said this to me last week… ‘I don’t remember you guys having this many tantrums’… 🙄 right after my boys were upset.”


parenting, conflict, kids, parents, gramnesia These moments may be harder to remember. Image via Canva

McQuaid posited some theories as to why gramnesia exists in the first place.

One is that it could simply be the natural tendency to have a cognitive bias which puts past experiences in a more positive light than they actually were, aka having “euphoric recall.” As she told Huffpost, we tend to have a “foggier memory of how things truly were” as we get older, “especially if the experience we had was particularly difficult or even traumatic.”

Plus, the first few years of parenthood are often such a blur anyway. McQuaid herself admitted that ”I even have a hard time remembering the first year of motherhood, and that was only four years ago.”

In addition, McQuaid theorized that gramnesia exists because previous generations “were not given space to express emotions or indicate that they were struggling to adjust to motherhood.” Honestly, a sound hypothesis.

And for the frustrated folks itching to confront their boomer parents about this, McQuaid suggests picking your battles.

“Check your capacity if you have the space or energy to even consider bringing up your frustration with your parents,” she told Huffpost. “You are likely in the throes of parenting right now, and maybe all you can do is smile and nod after hearing for the 100th time how ‘you were never like this.’”

However, if you are determined to bring it up and set the record straight, McQuaid suggests to actually keep it centered around you and how the situation makes you feel, rather than combating their memories. So, instead of saying, “That’s NOT how it happened!” try something like, “When you said that I never did X when I was Y’s age, it makes me question how well I’m doing as a parent.” Probably easier said than done, to be sure.

And while this sore spot might never come to a full resolution for a lot of millennial parents, at least take some solace in knowing that you’re not crazy, nor are you alone.

parenting, parenting life, parents, babies, having children You'll probably forget the stress of these days too. Image via Canva.

This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.

Politics

Folks on 'left' and 'right' share one thing they respect about one another. It's giving hope.

As one person wrote, "This is the most mature comment section I’ve seen."

Courtesy of Ashley Rankin @gynaminte_/TikTok

Looking at the positives of the other side makes it a lot harder to hate.

The United States feels on edge right now, with passions running high and partisanized rhetoric ramping up in the days following Charlie Kirk's assassination in Utah. For non-extremists, it's disheartening to see people on both "the left" and "the right" being painted in sweeping brush strokes filled with vitriol.

Most of us don't live like this in our everyday lives. Most of us don't live at extremes and are capable of nuanced thought. We acknowledge that the world's problems are complex and know that we aren't always going to agree on every solution. While we may disagree, sometimes vehemently, we don't paint half of our fellow Americans as the enemy.

america, united states, polarization, political division, partisanship Political polarization is out of control. It doesn't have to be this way. Photo credit: Canva

A woman in Utah, Ashley Rankin, was feeling overwhelmed and confused about the state of the country when she decided to make a video plea for compassion and understanding. "While recording, I zoned out for a second and my face perfectly captured how I felt in that moment," she tells Upworthy. "I dropped the words and thought, rather than telling people to spread love, hope, and compassion, I want to see what they will do, when presented with the opportunity."

So she overlayed her few-second video with "If you lean left, tell me something you respect about the right. If you lean right, tell me something you respect about the left," adding, "Let's spread hope." She asked viewers to fill her comments with positivity, and in a miraculous flip of the script we so often see online, people delivered exactly what she asked for.

@gynamite_

Please fill my comments with positivity! I live in Utah and things feel heavy here. #bridgingthedivide #HopeInHumanity #BetterTogether #UtahCommunity #positive

The comments filled up with people leaning one way or the other—sometimes even pretty far to the left or right—expressing their respect and admiration for various characteristics and beliefs of the "other side." It's truly a beautiful outpouring that demonstrates how much closer we are than we think:

"I am conservative, but I appreciate the left's fight for free lunches and universal healthcare. I don't believe anyone should starve or be denied medical care because they can't afford it."

"Left here: I respect how the right heavily advocates for the farm and rural communities. We really do need to send more resources out to them and respect our farmers more."

"Lean right - love the passion of the left and how they always want to speak up for the smallest person in the room."

"Straight blue voter here. I do appreciate the conservative principle of fiscal responsibility for the govt. We may disagree how our tax dollars are spent, but I don’t disagree that govt is wasteful."

Season 19 Episode 10 GIF by The Simpsons Giphy

"More conservative, but I love how the left advocates for preserving our earth, mental health, and resources for those who NEED them."

"As a Democrat I appreciate republicans patriotism and love for country and support for our troops and veterans. I just wish their representatives would vote to support those things that most of their constituents want to support."

"I’m more right than left, but I respect the left for their belief that you don’t have to be a traditional family to have family values. I actually agree with that."

"Leftist here 🤘🏼 I live in a deeply conservative, rural area. Whenever I’m in need, there’s help. Fresh baked bread randomly, the mechanic giving me free advice/discounts, fresh farm eggs cheaper than the store🥹"

"I’m mostly conservative. I appreciated the level of anger and ongoing fight regarding the undoing of roe v wade."

"Extremely left here, I appreciate how fiercely the right stands up for the working people; farmers, etc. I also am with them on getting violent criminals off the streets."

farmer, conservatives, liberals, right and left, politics People on the right tend to support rural life.Photo credit: Canva

"I’m conservative. I do truly respect that the people on the left wanting gun control have good hearts and genuinely want the gun violence to end."

"Dear Left-leaning people, Thank you for your fight for immigration rights. I may not 100% agree with how we get there, but, everyone deserves the right to come into the country and to have a chance for a better life."

"By far the BEST comment section I've ever seen. I lean left heavily but I've always admired how persistent Republicans are at pushing legislation and the change they want to see."

Perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not, there was a ton of love for John McCain and Barack Obama coming from opposite sides of the aisle in the comments.

"My family was always conservative, but everyone voted for Obama twice. Sometimes we have to accept that labels are for soup cans and vote for the person better qualified to lead."

"I’m a lifelong Democrat. I really loved John McCain! I thought he was such a well-rounded example of a true American patriot!"

"I lean more right, but Obama was the last president I felt like we all respected."

"I don’t 'lean' left: I am left. However, I think John McCain also conducted himself with so much integrity. I think he tried to do a good job and actually cared about the people in this country."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

"I am very Liberal and Canadian BUT when John McCain defended Obama against Muslim/ Arab attacks at his town halls…. I literally cried."

"I lean right, but I think the last time we had any dignity in politics, and I felt secure as a nation was when President Obama was in office. I think he’s an incredible leader, and he was the last time I trusted the person in power."

"I respect how John McCain stood up for Obama at one of his rallies and how he silenced the boos during his concession speech. Truly miss that kind of politics. Where we could disagree on issues but didn’t tear other down."

Mostly, though, people were just relieved and delighted to see how genuinely kind and heartfelt the comments were.

"This comment section glued a tiny piece of my heart back together."

"These comments are not what I expected to see. It gives me hope that we are not as divided as politicians and media wants us to believe."

"Reading all these comments makes me realize that we should be fighting extremists (both left and right) instead of each other."

"This is the most mature comment section I’ve seen. This is the dialogue I want to see. It’s easy to speak to each other when we do it in a respectful way rather than resorting to name-calling and oppressing others."

We really do have more in common than the online discourse and political rhetoric from many politicians would have us believe. Social media algorithms may reward extremism, but videos like this and the responses they're receiving are far more indicative of the reality most of us live in. Rankin's video has accumulated over 10,000 comments and they are overwhelmingly positive.

"I posted the short video hoping a few people would have genuine and respectful words, but was not expecting much," Rankin says. "I had NO idea the impact it would have on me and so many others. The comments were exactly what my weary heart needed. I'm finally proud to be an American again."