Votes for the future

Thomas Wells
Aeon.co
Originally published May 8, 2014

Here is an excerpt:

By contrast, future generations must accept whatever we choose to bequeath them, and they have no way of informing us of their values. In this, they are even more helpless than foreigners, on whom our political decisions about pollution, trade, war and so on are similarly imposed without consent. Disenfranchised as they are, such foreigners can at least petition their own governments to tell ours off, or engage with us directly by writing articles in our newspapers about the justice of their cause. The citizens of the future lack even this recourse.

The asymmetry between past and future is more than unfair. Our ancestors are beyond harm; they cannot know if we disappoint them. Yet the political decisions we make today will do more than just determine the burdens of citizenship for our grandchildren. They also concern existential dangers such as the likelihood of pandemics and environmental collapse. Without a presence in our political system, the plight of future citizens who might suffer or gain from our present political decisions cannot be properly weighed. We need to give them a voice.

How could we do that? After all, they can’t actually speak to us. Yet even if we can’t know what future citizens will actually value and believe in, we can still consider their interests, on the reasonable assumption that they will somewhat resemble our own (everybody needs breathable air, for example). Interests are much easier than wishes, and quite suitable for representation by proxies.

So perhaps we should simply encourage current citizens to take up the Burkean perspective and think of their civic duty in a more extended way when casting votes. Could this work?

The article is here.

Amusing Ourselves to Death? The Tension between Entertainment Values and Civic Virtues

Kayhan Parsi
bioethics.net
Originally posted February 24, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

I appreciate the fact that television is currently experiencing its latest golden age, with programming that rivals great literary works. Moreover, I believe that social media can be a force for good, mobilizing people to engage, to learn, and to be involved. Yet, with the dominance of visual and social media culture, we all need to become better educated on how to “read” this media culture. We need to reflect on how these new media shape the political landscape. And we need to connect the civic virtues in a meaningful way and harness the great power of these technologies. One way to do this is to adopt the Oxford-style debate format promoted by Intelligence Squared. As Rosencraz and Donvan argue, our current format reveals nothing of substance but rather is an opportunity for entertainment values to reign supreme. The candidate that says the most outrageous thing wins in this kind of format (WWF anyone?). On the other hand, “Oxford-style debate would force the candidates to respond to intense questions, marshal relevant facts, and expose weaknesses in their opponents’ arguments. Memorized talking points could not be disguised as answers.”

The blog post is here.

Can We Talk?

Eric H. Affsprung, PhD

Colleague Assistance Committee

Civic Virtue: Behavior that promotes the good of the community
Pro-Social Behavior: Caring about and acting on behalf of others

Why are these things important for psychologists? Are they important? How can such behavior improve our profession and our professional lives?

The members of PPA’s Colleague Assistance Committee work to promote self-care among the mem­bership. Last fall we found ourselves talking about what our obligations might be, as psychologists, to one another and our profession — and how such pro-social behavior is really an extension of good self-care (and vice versa). As we care for one another, we also support and nur­ture ourselves and our profession. We found ourselves wondering…

• Do we, as psychologists, have an obligation to support one another, to reach out to one another?
• As psychologists, have we made a commitment to one another?
• How can we support our fellow psychologists?
• How can we promote a culture of professional collegiality and support?
• How can we demonstrate care for one another in our places of employment?
• Do we promote transparency, trust and open communication at work and when working with other members of PPA? Or do we engage in split­ting, triangulation, one-upmanship, and gossip?
• When we need to correct a colleague, do we do so in a manner which is affirming of his or her value as a fellow human being? Do we take the oppor­tunity to teach, or do we belittle and punish?
• Do we have an obligation to mentor younger psychologists and those new to the profession?*
• Do we ask for help when we need to?

Are there things that we, as psychologists, don’t talk about with our colleagues? Are there things that you wish that you could talk about? Why don’t we talk about these things?

What do you think?

* Did someone act as a mentor to you? If not, what kind of mentor do you wish you’d had? Whom can you mentor? Please consider serving as a mentor for one of PPA’s early career psychologists. If you are interested, contact Dr. Michelle Herrigel, chair of the ECP committee.