Could this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner be instrumental instead in prolonging conflict? At the start of October, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that it would be awarding the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize to the World Food Programme (WFP). In a year of bad news, the influential prize recognising the work of the largest humanitarian organisation focused on hunger, thereby making the connection between food insecurity and conflict, was a welcomed bit of good news.

I can imagine too that beyond the agency itself, every other part of the United Nations also celebrated, as faith in multilateralism has been in steady decline and another UN agency, the World Health Organization, is faced with the prospect of the US’ withdrawal. But not everyone is delighted.

This essay in Kenya’s digital publication The Elephant makes a strong case for why it might be time to not only address the systemic problems exacerbated by food aid but also reimagine an organisation described as "hierarchical and authoritarian". Writer Rasna Warah uses Somalia as an example to show how food aid as provided by the WFP "essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship".

Equally, she points out how food aid is also big business: "Under current United States law, for instance, almost all US food aid (worth billions of dollars) must be purchased in the US and at least half of it must be transported on US-flagged vessels ... What then could have motivated the Committee to award WFP the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize – apart from some misguided notion that what the world needs most right now is food hand-outs?" Warah asks. The article proposes no answers, but at a time when answers are so readily available through internet search, perhaps it is good questions instead that we need.

Eliza, managing editor The Elephant: ‘Food crimes: why WFP doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize’ (reading time: 12 minutes)
This simple visualisation shows how you can protect yourself from the coronavirus After months of being bombarded with constant news stories about the coronavirus, it’s understandable if you’re fatigued. Many people may have jumped to the next recommendation as their eyes glazed over at the mention of "coronavirus" in the headline.

So I’ll keep this short: the virus is spread through the air, especially in indoor spaces. Aerosols – tiny contagious particles exhaled by an infected person – remain suspended in the air of an indoor environment.

This clear visualisation shows how the virus jumps from person to person in a bar, classroom and living room. So how do you limit your exposure? Wear a mask, ventilate the space, and reduce your time spent in one indoor setting.

Shaun, copy editor El Paîs: ‘A room, a bar and a classroom: how the coronavirus is spread through the air’ (reading time: 14 minutes)
Why you shouldn’t just keep calm and carry on Never one to shy away from a hearty takedown of the latest trend, I’ve enjoyed Hettie O’Brien’s critical examination of "the rise of neo-Stoicism", a wave of self-help books that excavate the merits of the ancient philosophy for the achieving classes.

She reminds us that those "pithy aphorisms about the power of resilience, rationality and fortitude apply primarily to those with plenty of freedom to make choices already", and contests the philosophy’s usefulness as a much-needed political driving force: "That the Stoics have often been interpreted as more concerned with individual virtue than structural critique is convenient for those searching for examples of goodness in a context that has been made unequal by design."

The modern, stripped-down version of stoicism in particular is sold with a promise that you can gain full control over your circumstances, that there’s plenty of meaning to be found in the mundane, and that peace of mind is an achievable goal no matter the depth of the sea of vicissitudes you’re navigating. Anger, even when justified, is considered an impediment to be overcome in our individual quest towards perfection.

O’Brien draws the conclusion that, by all means, give it a go if you must, but, assuming the earnestness of those books’ authors is genuine, becoming your best – loaded, efficient, smart(ass) – self won’t buy you meaning. Embracing it too tightly might even cost us revolutions.

Carmen, member support manager The Baffler: ‘Grin and bear it’ (reading time: 16 minutes)

The best of The Correspondent

Breast milk is free (and five other myths about breastfeeding debunked) Breastfeeding is misunderstood. It may be natural, but that does not make it easy, spontaneous or free. If we want to make policies that respect breastfeeding, we can start by debunking these six myths. Read Irene Caselli’s article here ‘Investing’ in mental health is doomed to fail because humans aren’t stocks The World Health Organization focused on investing in mental health as the theme for this year’s World Mental Health Day. That might sound sensible, but it’s precisely this language of ‘investment’ that is taking the mental health conversation backwards. Read Tanmoy Goswami’s article here Democracy is in decline. Here’s how we can revive it In a citizens’ assembly, members of the public convene to look for solutions to the toughest political challenges, like climate change. Why would a citizens’ assembly succeed where politicians fail? Read Eva Rovers and Jelmer Mommers’ article here