The quintessential superhero has always stood for truth and justice, but the final part of his catchphrase has morphed to match a more connected world—and his place in it What is home for Superman, the world’s most famous immigrant: Krypton, the United States, the whole of planet Earth? Next week, the newest chapter in the Superman saga hits theaters; the teaser trailer for the James Gunn-directed offering includes a nod to this question. A bloodied Superman splayed out on a snowy tundra whistles for his trusty dog, Krypto, and achingly pleads, “Krypto. Home. Take me home.” “Home” in this case refers to Superman’s earthly refuge, the Fortress of Solitude. But the meaning of home to Superman may be best solved by looking at the evolution of Superman’s famous motto: “Truth, justice and the American way.” Born on the fictional planet Krypton, the alien baby Kal-El was sent by his parents from their doomed world to Earth in a small spacecraft. Expanded retellings identify Smallville, Kansas, as his landing spot, where he was raised on a farm by Martha and Jonathan Kent. Now named Clark Kent, he grows up with superpowers. On reaching adulthood, Kent moves to the city of Metropolis and gains employment at the city’s newspaper, the Daily Planet. Being a reporter allows him access to breaking news stories, and thus the man in the red cape and blue tights begins to protect the world as the virtuous Superman. Since his 1938 debut in Action Comics No. 1, one home for Superman has been America, even though he was born on a distant planet. By World War II, Superman had a much greater fight at hand than local gangsters and villains like Lex Luthor. Superman fought for his country. The covers of Superman and World’s Finest Comics from that era feature him hawking bonds to fund the war and battling Axis enemies. At first the Superman radio serial extolled his devotion simply to “truth and justice.” But in 1942, two years after its premiere and with World War II raging, the serial added “the American way” to its opening narration—thereby touting the Man of Steel’s patriotic commitment to the values of his homeland. Amid Cold War jingoism and the Red Scare, the opening narration for the 1950s television show starring George Reeves grandly announced: “Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way.” The catchphrase was now firmly ingrained in world consciousness. Over the years, in different media, the motto appeared in various forms. The 1966 “New Adventures of Superman” animated series swapped out the reference to America for “truth, justice and freedom,” an especially apt choice with the recent passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. In the 1970s, the “Super Friends” cartoon adopted the catchphrase “truth, justice and peace for all mankind,” a wholesome message for young Saturday morning viewers. “‘The American way’ was absent from all media spanning April 1958, the final episode of the Reeves television series, until the pilot episode [which ended up running as the fifth episode of the series] of the ‘Superboy’ live-action television series in 1988,” says Roy Schwartz, a Superman expert and pop-culture historian. There the phrase is not part of the opening narration, but rather Superboy explains, “I fight for truth, justice and the American way” when first identifying himself. In the late 1970s, Superman reached his largest and most diverse audience to date with the eponymously named film starring Christopher Reeve. When asked by journalist Lois Lane what he stands for, the Man of Steel affirms, “truth, justice and the American way.” Lane laughs in disbelief. “You’re going to end up fighting every elected official in this country,” she retorts. This revealing moment shows Superman’s sincere belief in old-fashioned American values, while also acknowledging the cynicism of the era. Reeve’s Superman embodied a hopeful, principled hero trying to make people believe in goodness again, even if the world had grown distrustful in post-Watergate America. Despite the motto’s use on screen, comic books shied away from it. It was not until 1991, 53 years after Superman first appeared, that “truth, justice and the American way” graced a comic book’s page, says Schwartz. Superman No. 53 shows the hero proudly saluting, with the full phrase emblazoned in capital letters and punctuated by an exclamation point inside the stripes of a billowing American flag. Despite the patriotic cover and Superman’s reverent salute, he broadly acknowledges his global importance in a story about the rescue of a foreign president: “I believe in everything this flag stands for,” he says. “But as Superman I have to be a citizen of the world. I value all life, regardless of political borders.” The values of Superman’s earthly home extend to his heroics on an international stage. The television series “Smallville,” which followed the adventures of teen Clark Kent before his transformation into Superman, aired more than 200 episodes over ten seasons beginning in 2001. It depicts Superman’s home as the American heartland. His upbringing by good-hearted, wise and compassionate adoptive parents shapes his moral code. When Kent is running for high school president in the first season, a school reporter asks him about his platform. Unsure about his stance on the issues yet raised to do good, he responds: “I stand for truth, justice and other stuff.” The 2006 film Superman Returns also elides the classic mantra. Superman has spent an extended five years away from Earth to search for any remains of Krypton and his otherworldly roots. Wondering if this foray into the universe has changed Superman’s ideals, Daily Planet editor in chief Perry White immediately sends out reporters to see if he still stands for “truth, justice and all that stuff.” To much controversy, Superman renounces his American citizenship in Action Comics’ 2011 landmark 900th issue. “I’m tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy,” he says. “‘Truth, justice and the American way’––it’s not enough anymore.” Responding to backlash, DC Comics’ co-publishers issued a statement: “Superman announces his intention to put a global focus on his never ending battle, but he remains, as always, committed to his adopted home and his roots as a Kansas farm boy from Smallville.” DC affirmed Superman as shaped by his American upbringing but firmly situated him as a citizen of the world. Ten years later, the most recent television series starring the Big Blue Boy Scout, “Superman & Lois,” plays on the “American way” and questions about home in the first season. Interviewing Superman, Lane asks what he stands for, to which he responds: “Truth, justice.” Prodding further, she questions: “The American way?” An amused Superman replies, “I think someone’s just trying to get me to admit I was raised here.” Months later, DC officially changed Superman’s motto to “truth, justice and a better tomorrow.” As DC publisher Jim Lee explained at the time, “Superman has long been a symbol of hope who inspires people from around the world, and it is that optimism and hope that powers him forward with this new mission statement.” This new mission statement plays on one of Superman’s nicknames: The Man of Tomorrow. Back in May 1939, shortly before Superman received his first self-titled comic book, the wildly popular character appeared in New York World’s Fair Comics No. 1. That tie-in to the 1939 World’s Fair was written by Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The fair’s theme, “The World of Tomorrow,” inspired Superman’s new “Man of Tomorrow” moniker. The name nodded to Superman’s futuristic character and extraordinary powers that were meant to usher in a better future. Siegel and Shuster’s original tagline, from Action Comics No. 1, reads: “A physical marvel, a mental wonder, Superman is destined to reshape the destiny of a world!” The new motto “truth, justice and a better tomorrow” thus brings Superman closer to his creators’ vision. Siegel and Shuster always intended for the Last Son of Krypton to be a citizen of the world sent to make Earth a better place. As early as Action Comics No. 2, Superman ventured to South America, where he rescues Lois Lane from a firing squad and pre-empts a war. A similar scenario, although with a different international backdrop, is hinted at in the official trailer for the forthcoming Superman film. During an interview with Lane, Superman defends himself in the face of government sanction: “I stopped a war,” he says in disbelief over widespread criticism of his actions. Some still see the value in the original motto. “For me, it will always be ‘truth, justice, and the American way,’” says Brad Meltzer, a novelist and comic book author. “And I don’t think many people at DC will argue that with you. In fact, when I wrote [the children’s book] I Am Superman, I asked them if I could use ‘truth, justice and the American way.’ And everyone was completely lovely about it. In my humble opinion, I don’t think it’s as much of a fight as people keep insisting. It was just a way to add some more global accessibility. But right now, we need the ‘American way’ part—the hope, kindness and empathy that is at the core of the character—more than ever. Look around. We’re starving for Superman and his version of the American way. If you think the ‘American way’ part is about superiority, cruelty or dominance, you’re missing the whole point of Superman and comic books.” Superman was never meant to be a hero only for Americans. He was meant to serve the world. In that sense, Superman’s home does not matter even as his search for a personal identity has surely been an ongoing and intriguing storyline across media and decades. No doubt, many moviegoers worldwide eagerly anticipate the release of Gunn’s film to see where Superman’s request to go home takes him––the Fortress of Solitude and perhaps beyond. For over 80 years, Superman has been a champion of the oppressed, the epitome of social conscience, and an absolute supporter of democracy and responsible citizenship. In that way, he embodies America’s most deeply embedded, idealistic values. Those values guide Superman, a global hero without borders. Source of the article

Research shows that biodiversity recovery needs to be actively managed, especially in depopulating areas. Since 1970, 73% of global wildlife has been lost, while the world’s population has doubled to 8 billion. Research shows this isn’t a coincidence but that population growth is causing a catastrophic decline in biodiversity. Yet a turning point in human history is underway. According to UN projections, the number of people in 85 countries will be shrinking by 2050, mostly in Europe and Asia. By 2100, the human population is on course for global decline. Some say this will be good for the environment. In 2010, Japan became the first Asian country to begin depopulating. South Korea, China and Taiwan are following close behind. In 2014, Italy was the first in southern Europe, followed by Spain, Portugal and others. We call Japan and Italy “depopulation vanguard countries” on account of their role as forerunners for understanding possible consequences in their regions. Given assumptions that depopulation could help deliver environmental restoration, we have been working with colleagues Yang Li and Taku Fujita to investigate whether Japan is experiencing what we have termed a biodiversity “depopulation dividend” or something else. Since 2003, hundreds of citizen scientists have been collecting biodiversity data for the Japanese government’s Monitoring Sites 1,000 project. We used 1.5 million recorded species observations from 158 sites. These were in wooded, agricultural and peri-urban (transitional spaces on outskirts of cities) areas. We compared these observations against changes in local population, land use and surface temperature for periods of five to 20 years. Our study, published in the journal Nature Sustainability, includes birds, butterflies, fireflies, frogs and 2,922 native and non-native plants. These landscapes have experienced the greatest depopulation since the 1990s. Due to the size of our database, choice of sites and the positioning of Japan as a depopulation vanguard for north-east Asia, this is one of the largest studies of its kind. Japan is not Chernobyl Biodiversity continued to decrease in most of the areas we studied, irrespective of population increase or decrease. Only where the population remains steady is biodiversity more stable. However, the population of these areas is ageing and will decline soon, bringing them in line with the areas already seeing biodiversity loss. Unlike in Chernobyl, where a sudden crisis caused an almost total evacuation which stimulated startling accounts of wildlife revival, Japan’s population loss has developed gradually. Here, a mosaic pattern of changing land use emerges amid still-functioning communities. While most farmland remains under cultivation, some falls into disuse or abandonment, some is sold for urban development or transformed into intensively farmed landscapes. This prevents widespread natural succession of plant growth or afforestation (planting of new trees) that would enrich biodiversity. In these areas, humans are agents of ecosystem sustainability. Traditional farming and seasonal livelihood practices, such as flooding, planting and harvesting of rice fields, orchard and coppice management, and property upkeep, are important for maintaining biodiversity. So depopulation can be destructive to nature. Some species thrive, but these are often non-native ones that present other challenges, such as the drying and choking of formerly wet rice paddy fields by invasive grasses. Vacant and derelict buildings, underused infrastructure and socio-legal issues (such as complicated inheritance laws and land taxes, lack of local authority administrative capacity, and high demolition and disposal costs) all compound the problem. Even as the number of akiya (empty, disused or abandoned houses) increases to nearly 15% of the nation’s housing stock, the construction of new dwellings continues remorselessly. In 2024, more than 790,000 were built, due partly to Japan’s changing population distribution and household composition. Alongside these come roads, shopping malls, sports facilities, car parks and Japan’s ubiquitous convenience stores. All in all, wildlife has less space and fewer niches to inhabit, despite there being fewer people. What can be done Data shows deepening depopulation in Japan and north-east Asia. Fertility rates remain low in most developed countries. Immigration provides only a short-term softer landing, as countries currently supplying migrants, such as Vietnam, are also on course for depopulation. Our research demonstrates that biodiversity recovery needs to be actively managed, especially in depopulating areas. Despite this there are only a few rewilding projects in Japan. To help these develop, local authorities could be given powers to convert disused land into locally managed community conservancies. Nature depletion is a systemic risk to global economic stability. Ecological risks, such as fish stock declines or deforestation, need better accountability from governments and corporations. Rather than spend on more infrastructure for an ever-dwindling population, for example, Japanese companies could invest in growing local natural forests for carbon credits. Depopulation is emerging as a 21st-century global megatrend. Handled well, depopulation could help reduce the world’s most pressing environmental problems, including resource and energy use, emissions and waste, and nature conservation. But it needs to be actively managed for those opportunities to be realised. Source of the article

It’s telling that U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration wants to fire bureaucrats. In its view, bureaucrats stand for everything that’s wrong with the United States: overregulation, inefficiency and even the nation’s deficit, since they draw salaries from taxpayers. But bureaucrats have historically stood for something else entirely. As the sociologist Max Weber argued in his 1921 classic “Economy and Society,” bureaucrats represent a set of critical ideals: upholding expert knowledge, promoting equal treatment and serving others. While they may not live up to those ideals everywhere and every day, the description does ring largely true in democratic societies. I know this firsthand, because as a sociologist of work I’ve studied federal, state and local bureaucrats for more than two decades. I’ve watched them oversee the handling of human remains, screen travelers for security threats as well as promote primary and secondary education. And over and over again, I’ve seen bureaucrats stand for Weber’s ideals while conducting their often-hidden work. Bureaucrats as experts and equalizers Weber defined bureaucrats as people who work within systems governed by rules and procedures aimed at rational action. He emphasized bureaucrats’ reliance on expert training, noting: “The choice is only that between ‘bureaucratisation’ and ‘dilettantism.’” The choice between a bureaucrat and a dilettante to run an army − in his days, like in ours − seems like an obvious one. Weber saw that bureaucrats’ strength lies in their mastery of specialized knowledge. I couldn’t agree more. When I studied the procurement of whole body donations for medical research, for example, the state bureaucrats I spoke with were among the most knowledgeable professionals I encountered. Whether directors of anatomical services or chief medical examiners, they knew precisely how to properly secure, handle and transfer human cadavers so physicians could get trained. I felt greatly reassured that they were overseeing the donated bodies of loved ones. Weber also described bureaucrats as people who don’t make decisions based on favors. In other forms of rule, he noted, “the ruler is free to grant or withhold clemency” based on “personal preference,” but in bureaucracies, decisions are reached impersonally. By “impersonal,” Weber meant “without hatred or passion” and without “love and enthusiasm.” Put otherwise, the bureaucrats fulfill their work without regard to the person: “Everyone is treated with formal equality.” The federal Transportation Security Administration officers who perform their duties to ensure that we all travel safely epitomize this ideal. While interviewing and observing them, I felt grateful to see them not speculate about loving or hating anyone but treating all travelers as potential threats. The standard operating procedures they followed often proved tedious, but they were applied across the board. Doing any favors here would create immense security risks, as the recent Netflix action film “Carry-On” − about an officer blackmailed into allowing a terrorist to board a plane − illustrates. Advancing the public’s interests Finally, Weber highlighted bureaucrats’ commitment to serving the public. He stressed their tendency to act “in the interests of the welfare of those subjects over whom they rule.” Bureaucrats’ expertise and adherence to impersonal rules are meant to advance the common interest: for young and old, rural and urban dwellers alike, and many more. The state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education staff that I partnered with for years at the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth exemplified this ethic. They always impressed me by the huge sense of responsibility they felt toward all state residents. Even when local resources varied, they worked to ensure that all young people in the state − regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity − could thrive. Based on my personal experience, while they didn’t always get everything right, they were consistently committed to serving others. Today, bureaucrats are often framed by the administration and its supporters as the root of all problems. Yet if Weber’s insights and my observations are any guide, bureaucrats are also the safeguards that stand between the public and dilettantism, favoritism and selfishness. The overwhelming majority of bureaucrats whom I have studied and worked with deeply care about upholding expertise, treating everyone equally and ensuring the welfare of all. Yes, bureaucrats can slow things down and seem inefficient or costly at times. Sure, they can also be co-opted by totalitarian regimes and end up complicit in unimaginable tragedies. But with the right accountability mechanisms, democratic control and sufficient resources for them to perform their tasks, bureaucrats typically uphold critical ideals. In an era of growing hostility, it’s key to remember what bureaucrats have long stood for − and, let’s hope, still do. Source of the article