The premise of asking a question to win presumes questions are more important that answers!

New media offers great opportunities for play but creators should continue to be rewarded for their original work, including those creators showing originality in sampled or remixed works. But how do we determine what homages, samples and remixes demonstrate genuine originality and creativity? It matters to me because I work in the arts sector alongside creators and creative works, and others should care about it because the world is going to become a boring place if creators start doing something else because they feel their work just gets ripped off by others without reward or recognition.

We often think about beauty in terms of gender norms, but not often in relation to class. When we try to be beautiful, are we trying to shed any references to working class dom? Why do we describe poor people as “rough”? Are rich people genetically more likely to come out beautiful?

Elizabeth St in Melbourne is prone to flooding, and beneath the streets runs a creek (Williams creek) which seems to be desperate to reassert itself. Other cities have successfully (re)integrated waterways into their cities, notably Seoul, South Korea. Should Melbourne do the same?

Endometriosis and related conditions are VERY expensive to treat and go hand in hand with not being able to work so women and girls cannot move out, gain employment and are stuck in a hideously painful rut. The medical profession can be woefully uneducated about women’s health and more drugs need to be on the PBS. I pay about $200 a month for mine!

In the mid 1970’s I heard a bureaucrat [Bob Lansdowne] argue that social change came from shifts in compassion or compulsion-he was discussing our relationship with Indonesia and argued that compassion was in short supply. He was suggesting that huge disparities in income and wealth in an increasingly open and global environment were a recipe for instability and conflict–and that we should be afraid of the consequences of failing to address it. His concern is even more relevant today.

What with robots, computers, and all the other “help” we’re creating, not to mention jobs going offshore and/or “cheap labor” coming in from offshore, not to mention whole industries (manufacturing, mining) imploding, it looks as if it won’t be long before a goodly portion of the jobs will have disappeared. When three-quarters of working people can’t find a job in countries like Australia, surely we can’t rely on the old solutions of throwing them (us) a little dole money and calling them (us) bludgers (or leaners, if we’re being polite). Is it even possible to restructure the economy so that people can live well without working (or inherited wealth)? What would that look like? How would we get there?

We should all ask ourselves this question, and be spurred into passionately acting on the answer. Life on earth—and not just human life—depends on it. Literally your and our collective future is at stake.

Is it a protective reaction to dtop us from seeing things that cause us pain ? Evolutionary mystery.

Because climate change is talked about hundreds of times a day and the meaning of the term and issues tat need to be talked about are at odds. It is simply incorrect use of the english language, in a similar way to the use of ‘cement’ when referring to ‘concrete’!

Suppression of information is a means of maintaining power structures. Society prefers to pretend we all conform to an imagined standard rather than accept its own diverse nature.