Kids’ obsession with expensive skincare appears to damage more than just their parents’ pockets. PLUS: Why are nations racing to land on the moon?

Teens are already worried about aging, and they’re dropping big money to prevent it, according to an opinion piece in CNN.Thanks to social media and the beauty industry’s marketing machine, Gen Z is feeling the pressure for what CNN columnist Holly Thomas describes as “unattainable perfection.” US female teens spent 23% more in 2023 on skincare, cosmetics, and perfumes than they did in 2022, according to a Piper Sandler study on Gen Z spending habits.

What’s in a name? A lot. Beauty products have now been rebranded as “skin care products” making them appear as an obligation while delivering the subliminal message that if you don’t care for your skin, then you don’t care for yourself. Blast this to hormonal or insecure teens on social media through the 77.3 bn viewed #skincareroutine videos on TikTok, and you’ll have a generation of clients who will wield pressure on their caregivers to provide them with a product, Thomas writes. Even more, when they are financially independent, they will become the purchasing power that will keep a brand making money.

Are brands counting on the obsession with perfection? Their ads and sponsorships seem to suggest so. Providing teens and tweens with ads designed for adult consumption alongside images of poreless-skinned teens portrays an aesthetic that is impossible for many young individuals to attain, particularly as these ads don’t delve into the nuances of genetics, hormones, or diet as components of skin appearance. This leads to kids whining to buy products to try and attain the advertised level of perfection, Thomas suggests.

Aside from damaging their self-esteem, kids are damaging their skin.Dermatologists are warning that using products that are not meant for young skin goes as far as damaging their skin barrier and pushing them to develop acne and allergies to certain ingredients. “The skin is the largest and most complex organ and if the wrong products are used or introduced too early or for the wrong skin type, you can end up having more problems than originally were present,” celebrity dermatologist Harold Lancer told the New York Post.

Brands can do better. Despite knowing that their products aren’t necessarily formulated for the skin of their highest-paying demographic, they are marketing them. Case in point: Clinical skincare brand Murad launched a campaign for their serums in 2020 and enlisted the help of teenage influencers on Instagram — despite the products being geared towards “youth renewal” a problem that teens shouldn’t have to worry about yet. But they know that these teens are the very ones who will continue to splurge on their products the first chance they get.

Fly me to the moon…again. 55 years after the first crewed mission landed on the moon, a new global race to our nearest neighbor is taking place. On Saturday, Japan became the fifth country to complete a soft landing on the moon, joining the US, Russia, China, and India. The European Space Agency (ESA) expects that many will be following soon.

What’s the rush? It’s not for science — it’s for survival. Michelle Hanlon, executive director at the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, claims that humanity “needs to get to the moon in order to learn how to live in space… [and] how to utilize the resources of space.” Some of these resources include rare-earth metals that can be used to power nuclear fusion reactors.

One of the most valuable assets on the moon is water. Aside from being crucial to our survival, especially as the planet is on the brink of water scarcity, water can be used to make rocket fuel, meaning that the moon could become humanity’s largest gas station. Rockets may be able to use our satellite companion to refuel, using the boost as a springboard for deeper space exploration.

The European Space Agency estimates that more than 100 lunar missions will be taking place by 2030, despite the fact that only 24 missions have been conducted since the Soviet Union’s first contact with the moon in 1959. Of the 24 successful (or partially successful) moon landings, only six of them were crewed. The last time man set foot on the moon was 1972.

Why didn’t we do it earlier? The moon really doesn’t want us there. NASA has been trying to establish a permanent outpost on our satellite for years, only to be thwarted by moondust, which clogs equipment and takes hours to settle once kicked up. A breakthrough in October of last year came in the shape of a giant lens, with which the space agency hopes to melt some of the moondust to create roads and platforms.

Another reason? Moolah. After effectively winning the Space Race of yore, the US government cutfunding to NASA. The eleven Apollo missions from 1960-1973 cost USD 280 bn in today’s rates — an average of USD 25 bn per mission. One flight to the moon now costs the space agency just over USD 1 bn per person, and typical flights are manned by four people. Interestingly, India was able to successfully land on the moon for only USD 75 mn — USD 25 mn less than it cost to make the film Interstellar.