Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
How will a warming planet impact us? In conversation with Eureka Street, longtime climate journalist and contributing editor for Rolling Stone Jeff Goodell discusses two decades of covering climate change, examining the effects a superheated world, and how humanity will need to adapt.
Throughout recent decades of Australian history, the stance every government has taken on asylum seekers has reflected the shifting political landscapes and challenging humanitarian issues that have continually shaped Australia's response to those seeking refuge.
The Australian Indigenous Voice referendum has been rejected, as anticipated by many, with the meaning and consequences now up for debate. This debate may be as crucial as the referendum debate itself to determining the future of reconciliation and what it means to be Australian in the 21st century.
As Australia approaches a pivotal referendum, voters face a critical choice: endorse a new chapter in the Constitution providing a 'First Nations Voice' or leave it untouched. Whichever way the vote goes, we will be left with a Constitution not fit for purpose in the 21st century.
From Moscow to Beijing, a change in global finance looms, set to challenge the long-standing economic hegemony. This imminent shift could redefine global power structures, disrupt currency markets and international trade. Amidst this uncertainty, one thing is clear: the game of geopolitical chess is no longer played on a Western-centric board.
In Western societies, antisemitism is particularly noxious. To be understood, however, it needs to be precisely defined and set in the in the broader context of antipathy on racial, religious and other grounds.
No doubt there were some who genuinely believed that privatising employment services would result in better services at a lower cost to the public purse. But the engineers of the socially destructive projects of the neoliberal era knew very well that they were more likely to result in the enrichment of some to the detriment of many.
As the world thawed post-Cold War, a debate raged over global supremacy, with Western powers predicting a unipolar world dominated by liberal democracy. Contrarily, others envisioned a future shaped by cultural and religious divides. In a shifting geopolitical landscape, the echoes of this debate continue to challenge long-held assumptions on global power dynamics.
For over 40 years, I have supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That term means two states for two peoples. Such an outcome can only come about as the result of peaceful negotiations that advance compromise and moderation on both sides.
There is an economic case for acting on the climate crisis but the economics can be a distraction unless we start the conversation at the right place: the environment. A heating climate will cost us trillions. If we don’t act at all, it will cost us everything.
Religion and politics are frequent bedfellows. Despite many clerics and bishops holding strong political views, and many lay Catholics being active within political parties, the successful embrace of synodality depends upon finding middle ground, and leaders who respect a diversity of views.
The university campus is really the ideal place to tackle thorny issues. It is a safe place to examine all ideas, even — or perhaps especially — those that people find offensive or disturbing. The sad fact, though, is that there is a push these days to send the opposite message to students — that they should be shielded from intellectual discomfort. (From 2022)
25-36 out of 200 results.