Talk to Al Jazeera

In the coming years, Chile is expected to host 70 percent of global astronomical infrastructure.

In the Atacama Desert, the world's two largest telescopes - the ELT and the Giant Magellan - are under construction. When complete, they will provide direct views of planets in other solar systems. This will be an astronomical first.

Celestial objects have been observed and studied since the beginning of time. The planets and stars have helped human beings understand the cosmos, the way it functions, and its impact on our lives. Since Galileo Galilei became the first astronomer to use a telescope for his observations in the 17th century, humanity has devised newer and better ways to study the universe.

But what will these new facilities help us to discover? How will they change the way we look at our universe? And will they help answer the one question many are curious about: Is there extraterrestrial life?

"Life is there, potentially, in the whole universe. And when it arrives in a place where you know it's comfortable and can be developed, it does," says Chilean astrophysicist Dr Maria Teresa Ruiz.

"Although we have no evidence, I would find it very, extremely strange that we would be the only ones in the universe. There are so many, so many stars, so many planets around them. I'm sure there could be life in many of them."

Ruiz is known for discovering the brown dwarf star system named Kelu-1, a sub star located in constellation Hydra, approximately 61 light-years away from earth. She is a pioneer, the first woman to have received a doctorate from Princeton University, and the first woman to receive Chile's national prize for exact sciences.

She says the advanced telescopes will help study the atmospheres of distant planets, to search for traces of oxygen or other indicators of life.

"When you see the universe through these big eyes, you are going to see something nobody else has seen before ... Often the case is what you see, the unknown, is the most interesting thing; something you cannot predict. It's like opening a window to the unknown," she says.

Dr Jose Maza Sancho also believes in the possibility of extraterrestrial life, even if not necessarily always intelligent life.

"There are eight million forms of life on earth. Most of them are bacteria, but bacteria is a form of life," he says. "My suspicion is that at the very least there are 100 billion places in the universe with life."

However, he adds: "But from one galaxy to the next, [for example] a big galaxy like the Andromeda galaxy, the distance is more than two million light-years. If you say 'hello, are you there?' in two million years your message will reach Andromeda. And if they say 'yes, we're here, what do you want?' another two million years for the message to return."

Sancho is a bold exponent of a number of extraordinary theories, including humanity landing on Mars and developing into a multi-planetary society as soon as possible.

"The next challenge, the next intellectual challenge, is to go to Mars," he says, "because it is possible".

"When we went to the moon, all technology got an improvement, enormously. Our life - you or mine, and everybody's life - changed forever because of the dream to go to the moon. The only way to survive in Mars is to have another technology. And if we develop the technology for a few of us to live on Mars, that technology is going to change our life on earth forever."

"It's a big challenge, but if we are able to develop the atmosphere in Mars, we will be able to clean our atmosphere. If we develop big machines like that to survive in Mars, those machines applied massively on earth, we could be taking out of the atmosphere as much carbon dioxide as we are putting in."

This week two of Chile's top astronomers, Dr Maria Teresa Ruiz and Dr Jose Maza Sancho, talk to Al Jazeera.

-

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Peter Mutharika has governed the small African nation of Malawi since 2014.

He is a lawyer and professor who ran for a second five-year term in elections earlier this year.

But opposition parties said there were irregularities in the vote - and the high court temporarily prevented the results from being released.

The electoral commission has since declared the 79-year-old Mutharika the winner of that vote leading to thousands of Malawians to protest against that decision.

Police fired tear gas at protesters as the government accused the opposition of attempting to overthrow Mutharika by force.

Now, as he begins his new term, Mutharika faces several issues - including corruption, poverty and healthcare.

We will ask him what he intends to do to tackle these challenges.

Malawi's president Peter Mutharika, talks to Al Jazeera.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Peter Mutharika has governed the small African nation of Malawi since 2014.

He is a lawyer and professor who ran for a second five-year term in elections earlier this year.

But opposition parties said there were irregularities in the vote - and the high court temporarily prevented the results from being released.

The electoral commission has since declared the 79-year-old Mutharika the winner of that vote leading to thousands of Malawians to protest against that decision.

Police fired tear gas at protesters as the government accused the opposition of attempting to overthrow Mutharika by force.

Now, as he begins his new term, Mutharika faces several issues - including corruption, poverty and healthcare.

We will ask him what he intends to do to tackle these challenges.

Malawi's president Peter Mutharika, talks to Al Jazeera.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Isaac Hernandez has an ambitious dream: He hopes to help change his country through the medium of dance.

As the first Mexican to hold the prestigious role of lead principal dancer at the English National Ballet, the 29-year-old has already achieved a great deal. Two years ago he was named Best Male Dancer at ballet's equivalent of the Oscars.

"I consider [dance] a human right," he tells Al Jazeera, "something that is an instinct that we all have."

Along with his 10 brothers and sisters, Hernandez was taught dance at an early age in the back yard of their home in Guadalajara by parents who were also dancers.

"Ballet has been so exciting at different points in my life," he says. "Because when I was just starting to dance it was purely recreational. But when I started to understand the mechanics and the techniques behind it, and started realising how that was pushing my physical ability to the limit and to discover new limits, that was just pure excitement. And the moment that I felt that on stage, then I understood what freedom meant."

Despite living and performing around the world since he was 13, his heart remains in Mexico.

"There are realities about Mexico that, no matter how high I jump and how many turns I do, we cannot ignore; really there are real issues in my country that need to be addressed. For a very long time now, it's been very violent, it's been very corrupt," he says.

"But I have always been hopeful for my country because I recognise an essence in its people that gives me hope, that made me go back and say there's people here that are worth working for. And we need to be able to do it well."

Hernandez emphasises the need to do things without a political agenda, and for the wellbeing of individuals and the future of the country.

He set up a project to bring world-class dancers to Mexico to perform, teach in workshops, and inspire young dancers there. But government funding for the project has faced hurdles.

"One of the most popular sayings in Mexico is, if you are an artist you are going to starve, and the other one is that boys don't do ballet, and that ballet is a hobby, not a serious profession. So based on those three main issues that get passed through generations, I understood that the first thing that needs to happen is to change the mind of the parents for them to feel like their kids' passion could be a profession."

He believes that promoting the value of the arts could also be a way to help build Mexico's economy.

"I saw a huge potential in Mexico that was not being considered in that sense," he says. "So I started to promote a different way of seeing arts; not only as a tool for education, but as a tool for social mobility, so that a kid who starts dancing in a backyard can make a living, can improve his life, and by consequence improve a whole country."

On Talk to Al Jazeera, Hernandez discusses the joy of dance, why the arts urgently need government support in Mexico, and how young people should have the chance to realise their dreams.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Isaac Hernandez has an ambitious dream: He hopes to help change his country through the medium of dance.

As the first Mexican to hold the prestigious role of lead principal dancer at the English National Ballet, the 29-year-old has already achieved a great deal. Two years ago he was named Best Male Dancer at ballet's equivalent of the Oscars.

"I consider [dance] a human right," he tells Al Jazeera, "something that is an instinct that we all have."

Along with his 10 brothers and sisters, Hernandez was taught dance at an early age in the back yard of their home in Guadalajara by parents who were also dancers.

"Ballet has been so exciting at different points in my life," he says. "Because when I was just starting to dance it was purely recreational. But when I started to understand the mechanics and the techniques behind it, and started realising how that was pushing my physical ability to the limit and to discover new limits, that was just pure excitement. And the moment that I felt that on stage, then I understood what freedom meant."

Despite living and performing around the world since he was 13, his heart remains in Mexico.

"There are realities about Mexico that, no matter how high I jump and how many turns I do, we cannot ignore; really there are real issues in my country that need to be addressed. For a very long time now, it's been very violent, it's been very corrupt," he says.

"But I have always been hopeful for my country because I recognise an essence in its people that gives me hope, that made me go back and say there's people here that are worth working for. And we need to be able to do it well."

Hernandez emphasises the need to do things without a political agenda, and for the wellbeing of individuals and the future of the country.

He set up a project to bring world-class dancers to Mexico to perform, teach in workshops, and inspire young dancers there. But government funding for the project has faced hurdles.

"One of the most popular sayings in Mexico is, if you are an artist you are going to starve, and the other one is that boys don't do ballet, and that ballet is a hobby, not a serious profession. So based on those three main issues that get passed through generations, I understood that the first thing that needs to happen is to change the mind of the parents for them to feel like their kids' passion could be a profession."

He believes that promoting the value of the arts could also be a way to help build Mexico's economy.

"I saw a huge potential in Mexico that was not being considered in that sense," he says. "So I started to promote a different way of seeing arts; not only as a tool for education, but as a tool for social mobility, so that a kid who starts dancing in a backyard can make a living, can improve his life, and by consequence improve a whole country."

On Talk to Al Jazeera, Hernandez discusses the joy of dance, why the arts urgently need government support in Mexico, and how young people should have the chance to realise their dreams.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

It has been a year since the former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan became Pakistan's Prime Minister.

Khan's campaign slogan was "Naya Pakistan" or "New Pakistan", a reflection of his promises to turn the county's economy around and end corruption.

But the first year of his premiership has not gone as smoothly as he may have hoped or even expected, especially in terms of the economy. The Pakistani rupee has lost 35 percent of its value during his time in office.

Khan's critics call him the prime minister of the U-turns, as he has been forced to go back on many of his campaign pledges in an attempt to rescue the situation.

"I'm glad they say I'm a prime minister of U-turns. Only an idiot doesn't do any u-turns," Khan tells Al Jazeera. "Only a moron, when he's on a course and he comes across a brick wall, only that stupid idiot keeps banging his head against a brick wall. An intelligent person immediately revises his strategy and goes around it."

But have any of these 'U-turns' had a positive impact on the country?

In terms of foreign affairs, Pakistan is closer than ever to its neighbour, China. But relations with its other neighbour, India, are at a new low.

Asked whether these two nuclear countries are at risk of another major conflict, or even war, Khan tells Al Jazeera he "absolutely" believes war with India could be a possibility.

"Eight million Muslims in Kashmir are under siege for almost now six weeks. And why this can become a flashpoint between India and Pakistan is because what we already know India is trying to do is divert attention from their illegal annexation and their impending genocide on Kashmir," he says. "They are taking the attention away by blaming Pakistan for terrorism."

"Pakistan would never start a war, and I am clear: I am a pacifist, I am anti-war, I believe that wars do not solve any problems," he clarifies.

But, he adds: "When two nuclear armed countries fight, if they fight a conventional war, there is every possibility that it is going to end up into nuclear war. The unthinkable."

"If say Pakistan, God forbid, we are fighting a conventional war, we are losing, and if a country is stuck between the choice: either you surrender or you fight til death for your freedom, I know Pakistanis will fight to death for their freedom. So when a nuclear armed country fights to the end, to the death, it has consequences."

"So that's why we have approached the United Nations, we are approaching every international forum, that they must act right now, because this is a potential disaster that would go way beyond the Indian subcontinent."

Until recently, Pakistan had made attempts to open dialogue with India "to live as civilised neighbours, to resolve our difference [over Kashmir] ... through a political settlement", but according to Khan, this is no longer the case.

"We discovered that while we were trying to have dialogue, they were trying to push us in the black list in FATF ... If Pakistan is pushed into the black list of FATF that means there will be sanctions on Pakistan. So they were trying to bankrupt us economically, so that's when we pulled back. And that's when we realised that this government is on an agenda. The agenda is to push Pakistan to disaster," says Khan.

"There is no question of talking to the Indian government right now after they revoked this article 370 of their own constitution and they annexed Kashmir illegally against the UN security council resolution which had guaranteed the people that they would be able to hold a referendum, a plebiscite, to decide their destiny. So they have unilaterally not only broken international laws, but also their own constitution."

Asked about his government's achievements after the first year in office, Khan says: "We are already in a new Pakistan ... This government has done things which no government has done before. But, as they say, Rome was not built in a day. When you start making these massive changes, reforms, it takes time. The time to judge a government is five years ... The first year was the most difficult period, but from now onwards people will start seeing the difference ... the direction of the country is now right."

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

It has been a year since the former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan became Pakistan's Prime Minister.

Khan's campaign slogan was "Naya Pakistan" or "New Pakistan", a reflection of his promises to turn the county's economy around and end corruption.

But the first year of his premiership has not gone as smoothly as he may have hoped or even expected, especially in terms of the economy. The Pakistani rupee has lost 35 percent of its value during his time in office.

Khan's critics call him the prime minister of the U-turns, as he has been forced to go back on many of his campaign pledges in an attempt to rescue the situation.

"I'm glad they say I'm a prime minister of U-turns. Only an idiot doesn't do any u-turns," Khan tells Al Jazeera. "Only a moron, when he's on a course and he comes across a brick wall, only that stupid idiot keeps banging his head against a brick wall. An intelligent person immediately revises his strategy and goes around it."

But have any of these 'U-turns' had a positive impact on the country?

In terms of foreign affairs, Pakistan is closer than ever to its neighbour, China. But relations with its other neighbour, India, are at a new low.

Asked whether these two nuclear countries are at risk of another major conflict, or even war, Khan tells Al Jazeera he "absolutely" believes war with India could be a possibility.

"Eight million Muslims in Kashmir are under siege for almost now six weeks. And why this can become a flashpoint between India and Pakistan is because what we already know India is trying to do is divert attention from their illegal annexation and their impending genocide on Kashmir," he says. "They are taking the attention away by blaming Pakistan for terrorism."

"Pakistan would never start a war, and I am clear: I am a pacifist, I am anti-war, I believe that wars do not solve any problems," he clarifies.

But, he adds: "When two nuclear armed countries fight, if they fight a conventional war, there is every possibility that it is going to end up into nuclear war. The unthinkable."

"If say Pakistan, God forbid, we are fighting a conventional war, we are losing, and if a country is stuck between the choice: either you surrender or you fight til death for your freedom, I know Pakistanis will fight to death for their freedom. So when a nuclear armed country fights to the end, to the death, it has consequences."

"So that's why we have approached the United Nations, we are approaching every international forum, that they must act right now, because this is a potential disaster that would go way beyond the Indian subcontinent."

Until recently, Pakistan had made attempts to open dialogue with India "to live as civilised neighbours, to resolve our difference [over Kashmir] ... through a political settlement", but according to Khan, this is no longer the case.

"We discovered that while we were trying to have dialogue, they were trying to push us in the black list in FATF ... If Pakistan is pushed into the black list of FATF that means there will be sanctions on Pakistan. So they were trying to bankrupt us economically, so that's when we pulled back. And that's when we realised that this government is on an agenda. The agenda is to push Pakistan to disaster," says Khan.

"There is no question of talking to the Indian government right now after they revoked this article 370 of their own constitution and they annexed Kashmir illegally against the UN security council resolution which had guaranteed the people that they would be able to hold a referendum, a plebiscite, to decide their destiny. So they have unilaterally not only broken international laws, but also their own constitution."

Asked about his government's achievements after the first year in office, Khan says: "We are already in a new Pakistan ... This government has done things which no government has done before. But, as they say, Rome was not built in a day. When you start making these massive changes, reforms, it takes time. The time to judge a government is five years ... The first year was the most difficult period, but from now onwards people will start seeing the difference ... the direction of the country is now right."

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Peace talks between the United States and the Taliban began last October in Qatar, with the aim of ending the almost 18-year-old war in Afghanistan.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced that negotiations were over.

"They are dead. They are dead. As far as I’m concerned, they are dead," Trump told reporters, blaming a Taliban attack last week in which an American soldier was among the 12 people killed.

"They thought that they had to kill people in order to put themselves in a little better negotiating position ... You can't do that with me, so they [the talks] are dead as far as I'm concerned," Trump said.

The president's move surprised the Taliban's leaders.

"It was astonishing for us because we had already concluded the peace agreement with the American

negotiating team," Suhail Shaheen, the Taliban spokesperson in Qatar's capital Doha, told Al Jazeera.

After nine rounds of negotiations in Doha, it seemed that most of the differences between the US and the Taliban had been resolved. The US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, also said a peace agreement was finalised in principle.

Since talks began, discussions focused on four key issues: a Taliban guarantee it will not allow foreign armed groups and fighters to use Afghanistan as a launchpad to conduct attacks outside the country; the complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces; an intra-Afghan dialogue; and a permanent ceasefire.

Shaheen said a ceasefire inside the country was never part of the negotiations but rather an intra-Afghan matter that would form part of future discussions with the country's government - but only after foreign forces withdraw.

"About the other Afghans, we are ready to talk with them. If there is a ceasefire with them, there will be no attack [on] them. But this is another aspect of the Afghan issue. We want to end the occupation of Afghanistan first," he said.

He said the Taliban's agreement with the US was to offer them safe passage in the withdrawal of troops - something they would stand by if a deal is signed.

"If we sign an agreement with them, we have the obligation not to attack them and provide them a safe passage. If they withdraw without any peace agreement signing with us, it is up to our consent or willing[ness] whether to attack or not to attack them," Shaheen said.

"It is then up to us, because there is no agreement. So we will attack them if we see it is in our interest, our national interest, our Islamic interest. If we see it in our interest not to attack, we will not attack them."

"If the Americans want to not attack us, and they want to withdraw, and they sign the agreement, yes we will not attack them ... But if they attack us, they continue their bombardment, their night raids, [then] that will continue from our side what has been continuing for the last 18 years."

So with the US quitting the negotiating table, can peace be achieved in Afghanistan? And if so, what would it take?

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Peace talks between the United States and the Taliban began last October in Qatar, with the aim of ending the almost 18-year-old war in Afghanistan.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced that negotiations were over.

"They are dead. They are dead. As far as I’m concerned, they are dead," Trump told reporters, blaming a Taliban attack last week in which an American soldier was among the 12 people killed.

"They thought that they had to kill people in order to put themselves in a little better negotiating position ... You can't do that with me, so they [the talks] are dead as far as I'm concerned," Trump said.

The president's move surprised the Taliban's leaders.

"It was astonishing for us because we had already concluded the peace agreement with the American

negotiating team," Suhail Shaheen, the Taliban spokesperson in Qatar's capital Doha, told Al Jazeera.

After nine rounds of negotiations in Doha, it seemed that most of the differences between the US and the Taliban had been resolved. The US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, also said a peace agreement was finalised in principle.

Since talks began, discussions focused on four key issues: a Taliban guarantee it will not allow foreign armed groups and fighters to use Afghanistan as a launchpad to conduct attacks outside the country; the complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces; an intra-Afghan dialogue; and a permanent ceasefire.

Shaheen said a ceasefire inside the country was never part of the negotiations but rather an intra-Afghan matter that would form part of future discussions with the country's government - but only after foreign forces withdraw.

"About the other Afghans, we are ready to talk with them. If there is a ceasefire with them, there will be no attack [on] them. But this is another aspect of the Afghan issue. We want to end the occupation of Afghanistan first," he said.

He said the Taliban's agreement with the US was to offer them safe passage in the withdrawal of troops - something they would stand by if a deal is signed.

"If we sign an agreement with them, we have the obligation not to attack them and provide them a safe passage. If they withdraw without any peace agreement signing with us, it is up to our consent or willing[ness] whether to attack or not to attack them," Shaheen said.

"It is then up to us, because there is no agreement. So we will attack them if we see it is in our interest, our national interest, our Islamic interest. If we see it in our interest not to attack, we will not attack them."

"If the Americans want to not attack us, and they want to withdraw, and they sign the agreement, yes we will not attack them ... But if they attack us, they continue their bombardment, their night raids, [then] that will continue from our side what has been continuing for the last 18 years."

So with the US quitting the negotiating table, can peace be achieved in Afghanistan? And if so, what would it take?

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

More and more young people are addicted to online video games.

In a controversial decision last year the World Health Organization classified it as a disease. The WHO defines gaming disorder as "impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite negative consequences".

Although it's spreading all over the world and only affects a small number of people who play video games, one of the first countries dealing with the disorder has been Japan.

"I wake up in the afternoon and then turn my computer on. Then I'm gaming until around noon the next day and then go to sleep," says Shintaro Sakurai, who has been gaming since kindergarten.

He plays every day, for between three and 20 hours a day, and seldom has time for much else. But he also does not believe he is addicted.

Excessive gaming also has an impact on gamers' friends and family.

"I wake up at around 8-9am. The first thing I do is open my computer," says schoolboy Taito Kobayashi, who lives with his parents outside Tokyo. They are increasingly worried about their son, and fear he may be addicted.

"He only sleeps a little and is up all night," says Taito's mother Remi Kobayashi. "Online games are the most important thing to him," adds his father Hiroyuki Kobayashi. "As parents we need to consider what we can do to help."

Taito admits that he plays too much, but says "I don't want to quit."

Dr Susumu Higuchi, an addiction specialist who works at the first clinic in Japan devoted to treating this disorder, is concerned about the neurological impact excessive gaming has on young people.

"There are at least several papers reporting the brain damage caused by gaming disorder, meaning the neural cells were destroyed or damaged by excessive gaming, and this is probably the most important or significant findings," he says.

For those who are addicted, is there a way to successfully treat this disease? Higuchi says research into success rates is still being done .

"When we see a patient with gaming disorder, we strongly recommend him or her to give up playing games... If they agree to do that, usually their outcome is quite good," he says. "But if they do not want to stop gaming completely ... their outcome is not so good."

He also highlights the difference between sufferers of gaming disorder vs other forms of addiction.

"In the case of gambling, or in the case of alcohol dependence, the majority of patients are adults. They can understand the situation they are put in and they can understand why they have to stop drinking or stop gambling and so forth," Higuchi explains.

"But in the case of schoolboys and girls [addicted to gaming], they cannot understand that. So if we push too much, they will drop out from treatment. And this is a very big issue for us. So we have to think about the balance between how hard we push, and at the same time we have to avoid the patient dropping out."

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/