By Abby Haglage
The Daily Beast
Originally published September 30, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
In the 15 years since the documentary sparked outrage, there are more child laborers in the cocoa industry than ever before. The companies have not only failed to stop the “worst forms of child labor”; they’ve seemingly made it worse. A report released on July 30, 2015, from the Payson Center for International Development of Tulane University and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor found a 51 percent increase in the number of children working in the cocoa industry in 2013-14, compared to the last report in 2008-09. The number, they found, now totals 1.4 million. Those living in slave-like conditions increased 10 percent from the 2008-09 results, now totaling 1.1 million. The study concludes that while “some progress has been made,” the goal of reducing the number of children in the industry had “not come within reach.”
The California plaintiffs’ false-advertising claims against Nestle, Hershey, and Mars are the latest effort to pressure the chocolate industry to fix a problem it has known about for more than a decade. “Children that are sometimes not even 10 years old carry huge sacks that are so big that they cause them serious physical harm,” the complaint alleges.
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The importance of human innovation in A.I. ethics
By John C. Havens
Mashable
Originally posted October 3, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
While welcoming the feedback that sensors, data and Artificial Intelligence provide, we’re at a critical inflection point. Demarcating the parameters between assistance and automation has never been more central to human well-being. But today, beauty is in the AI of the beholder. Desensitized to the value of personal data, we hemorrhage precious insights regarding our identity that define the moral nuances necessary to navigate algorithmic modernity.
If no values-based standards exist for Artificial Intelligence, then the biases of its manufacturers will define our universal code of human ethics. But this should not be their cross to bear alone. It’s time to stop vilifying the AI community and start defining in concert with their creations what the good life means surrounding our consciousness and code.
The entire article is here.
Mashable
Originally posted October 3, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
While welcoming the feedback that sensors, data and Artificial Intelligence provide, we’re at a critical inflection point. Demarcating the parameters between assistance and automation has never been more central to human well-being. But today, beauty is in the AI of the beholder. Desensitized to the value of personal data, we hemorrhage precious insights regarding our identity that define the moral nuances necessary to navigate algorithmic modernity.
If no values-based standards exist for Artificial Intelligence, then the biases of its manufacturers will define our universal code of human ethics. But this should not be their cross to bear alone. It’s time to stop vilifying the AI community and start defining in concert with their creations what the good life means surrounding our consciousness and code.
The entire article is here.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Call for ethical debate on sex robots
Patricia Karvelas
RN Drive
Originally published September 30, 2015
At least two companies are developing robots that can have intimate sexual relations. One is expected to release its first robot on to the market this year.
Now, a British academic believes that we need to have a conversation about the impact that human-robot sexual relations will have on wider society.
Kathleen Richardson is an anthropologist and Senior Research Fellow in the Ethics of Robotics at De Montfort University in the UK, and she has a written a paper debating the ethics of sex robots.
The 7 minute podcast is here.
RN Drive
Originally published September 30, 2015
At least two companies are developing robots that can have intimate sexual relations. One is expected to release its first robot on to the market this year.
Now, a British academic believes that we need to have a conversation about the impact that human-robot sexual relations will have on wider society.
Kathleen Richardson is an anthropologist and Senior Research Fellow in the Ethics of Robotics at De Montfort University in the UK, and she has a written a paper debating the ethics of sex robots.
The 7 minute podcast is here.
Who's Sweating the Sexbots?
By Julie Beck
The Atlantic
Originally published September 30, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Katherine Koster, the communications director of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, says that the comparison shows a misunderstanding of the sex trade. “That power relationship that they're assuming exists within the sex trade may or may not exist,” she says. “Sex workers are repeatedly saying that's not always what it looks like.”
Levy writes that the rise of sexbots will mean the decline of the sex industry, but Richardson is less convinced. She believes the introduction of sex robots will somehow further the exploitation of sex workers.
“It became more and more apparent that women in prostitution were already dehumanized, and this was the same model that they then wanted to put into these machines they’re developing,” Richardson says. “When we encourage a kind of scenario in the real world that encourages that mode of operation,we’re basically saying it’s okay for humans to not recognize other people as human subjects.” She says she plans to reach out to sex-work abolition groups around the world as part of the Campaign Against Sex Robots.
The entire article is here.
The Atlantic
Originally published September 30, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Katherine Koster, the communications director of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, says that the comparison shows a misunderstanding of the sex trade. “That power relationship that they're assuming exists within the sex trade may or may not exist,” she says. “Sex workers are repeatedly saying that's not always what it looks like.”
Levy writes that the rise of sexbots will mean the decline of the sex industry, but Richardson is less convinced. She believes the introduction of sex robots will somehow further the exploitation of sex workers.
“It became more and more apparent that women in prostitution were already dehumanized, and this was the same model that they then wanted to put into these machines they’re developing,” Richardson says. “When we encourage a kind of scenario in the real world that encourages that mode of operation,we’re basically saying it’s okay for humans to not recognize other people as human subjects.” She says she plans to reach out to sex-work abolition groups around the world as part of the Campaign Against Sex Robots.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Haunts or Helps from the Past: Understanding the Effect of Recall on Current Self-Control
Hristina Nikolova, Cait Lamberton, and Kelly L. Haws
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Available online 30 June 2015
Scientific Abstract
Conventional wisdom suggests that remembering our past, and particularly, the mistakes we have made, will help us make better decisions in the present. But how successful is this practice in the domain of self-control? Our work examines how the content of consumers' recollections (past self-control successes versus failures) and the subjective difficulty with which this content comes to mind (easily or with difficulty) jointly shape consumers' self-control decisions. When successes are easy to recall, we find that people display more self-control than when they have difficulty recalling successes. However, recalling failures prompts indulgence regardless of its difficulty. We suggest that these differences in behavior may exist because recalling failures has substantially different affective and cognitive consequences than does recalling successes. Consistent with this theory, we demonstrate that self-certainty moderates the effects of recall on self-control. Taken together, this work enhances our understanding of self-control, self-perceptions, and metacognition.
Layperson interpretation can be found here.
Professional article can be found here.
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Available online 30 June 2015
Scientific Abstract
Conventional wisdom suggests that remembering our past, and particularly, the mistakes we have made, will help us make better decisions in the present. But how successful is this practice in the domain of self-control? Our work examines how the content of consumers' recollections (past self-control successes versus failures) and the subjective difficulty with which this content comes to mind (easily or with difficulty) jointly shape consumers' self-control decisions. When successes are easy to recall, we find that people display more self-control than when they have difficulty recalling successes. However, recalling failures prompts indulgence regardless of its difficulty. We suggest that these differences in behavior may exist because recalling failures has substantially different affective and cognitive consequences than does recalling successes. Consistent with this theory, we demonstrate that self-certainty moderates the effects of recall on self-control. Taken together, this work enhances our understanding of self-control, self-perceptions, and metacognition.
Layperson interpretation can be found here.
Professional article can be found here.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Chimpanzee choice rates in competitive games match equilibrium game theory predictions
Christopher Flynn Martin, Rahul Bhui, Peter Bossaerts, Tetsuro Matsuzawa & Colin Camerer
Scientific Reports 4, Article number: 5182 (2014)
doi:10.1038/srep05182
Abstract
The capacity for strategic thinking about the payoff-relevant actions of conspecifics is not well understood across species. We use game theory to make predictions about choices and temporal dynamics in three abstract competitive situations with chimpanzee participants. Frequencies of chimpanzee choices are extremely close to equilibrium (accurate-guessing) predictions, and shift as payoffs change, just as equilibrium theory predicts. The chimpanzee choices are also closer to the equilibrium prediction, and more responsive to past history and payoff changes, than two samples of human choices from experiments in which humans were also initially uninformed about opponent payoffs and could not communicate verbally. The results are consistent with a tentative interpretation of game theory as explaining evolved behavior, with the additional hypothesis that chimpanzees may retain or practice a specialized capacity to adjust strategy choice during competition to perform at least as well as, or better than, humans have.
Friday, October 16, 2015
UK end-of-life care 'best in world'
By Nick Triggle
BBC News
Originally posted October 6, 2015
End-of-life care in the UK has been ranked as the best in the world with a study praising the quality and availability of services.
The study of 80 countries said thanks to the NHS and hospice movement the care provided was "second to none".
Rich nations tended to perform the best - with Australia and New Zealand ranked second and third respectively.
But the report by the Economist Intelligence Unit praised progress made in some of the poorest countries.
The article and the rankings are here.
BBC News
Originally posted October 6, 2015
End-of-life care in the UK has been ranked as the best in the world with a study praising the quality and availability of services.
The study of 80 countries said thanks to the NHS and hospice movement the care provided was "second to none".
Rich nations tended to perform the best - with Australia and New Zealand ranked second and third respectively.
But the report by the Economist Intelligence Unit praised progress made in some of the poorest countries.
The article and the rankings are here.
The Dark Side of Empathy
By Paul Bloom
The Atlantic
Originally published on September 25, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Our reaction to these atrocities can cloud our judgment, biasing us in favor of war. The benefits of war—including avenging those who have suffered—are made vivid, but the costs of war remain abstract and statistical. We see this same bias reflected in our criminal-justice system. The outrage that comes from empathy drives some of our most powerful punitive desires. It’s not an accident that so many statutes are named for dead girls—as in Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law, and Caylee’s Law—and no surprise that there is now enthusiasm for “Kate’s Law.” The high incarceration rate in the United States, and our continued enthusiasm for the death penalty, is in part the product of fear and anger, but is also driven by the consumption of detailed stories of victims’ suffering.
Then there are victim-impact statements, where detailed descriptions of how victims are affected by a crime are used to help determine the sentence imposed on a criminal. There are arguments in favor of these statements, but given all the evidence that we are more prone to empathize with some individuals over others—with factors like race, sex, and physical attractiveness playing a powerful role—it’s hard to think of a more biased and unfair way to determine punishment.
The entire article is here.
The Atlantic
Originally published on September 25, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Our reaction to these atrocities can cloud our judgment, biasing us in favor of war. The benefits of war—including avenging those who have suffered—are made vivid, but the costs of war remain abstract and statistical. We see this same bias reflected in our criminal-justice system. The outrage that comes from empathy drives some of our most powerful punitive desires. It’s not an accident that so many statutes are named for dead girls—as in Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law, and Caylee’s Law—and no surprise that there is now enthusiasm for “Kate’s Law.” The high incarceration rate in the United States, and our continued enthusiasm for the death penalty, is in part the product of fear and anger, but is also driven by the consumption of detailed stories of victims’ suffering.
Then there are victim-impact statements, where detailed descriptions of how victims are affected by a crime are used to help determine the sentence imposed on a criminal. There are arguments in favor of these statements, but given all the evidence that we are more prone to empathize with some individuals over others—with factors like race, sex, and physical attractiveness playing a powerful role—it’s hard to think of a more biased and unfair way to determine punishment.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
How stress influences our morality
By Lucius Caviola & Nadira S. Faber
The Inquisitive Mind
Issues 23, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Moral judgments seem to be affected by stress only when the situation elicits an emotional reaction strong enough to be impacted by the stress reactions such as trolley-like personal moral dilemmas. For example, Starcke, Polzer, Wolf, and Brand (2011) used everyday moral dilemmas that were less extreme compared to the trolley dilemma, for example, asking participants whether they would leave a message to the owner of a car that they had accidentally scratched. They did observe an association between people’s cortisol levels and egoistic judgments in those dilemmas considered to be most emotional. However, the researchers failed to find a significant difference in judgments between stressed and non-stressed participants, presumably because the moral vignettes used in this study did not elicit emotions that were strong enough to cause a difference compared to trolley-like personal moral dilemmas.
Nonetheless, many of us are confronted with highly emotional moral situations in real life in which our judgments could be influenced by stress. For example, people might be more prone to help a child beggar on the street if they feel stressed after an uncomfortable meeting at work. Even more worryingly, doctors who face life-and-death decisions might be influenced by the daily stress they experience.
The entire article is here.
The Inquisitive Mind
Issues 23, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Moral judgments seem to be affected by stress only when the situation elicits an emotional reaction strong enough to be impacted by the stress reactions such as trolley-like personal moral dilemmas. For example, Starcke, Polzer, Wolf, and Brand (2011) used everyday moral dilemmas that were less extreme compared to the trolley dilemma, for example, asking participants whether they would leave a message to the owner of a car that they had accidentally scratched. They did observe an association between people’s cortisol levels and egoistic judgments in those dilemmas considered to be most emotional. However, the researchers failed to find a significant difference in judgments between stressed and non-stressed participants, presumably because the moral vignettes used in this study did not elicit emotions that were strong enough to cause a difference compared to trolley-like personal moral dilemmas.
Nonetheless, many of us are confronted with highly emotional moral situations in real life in which our judgments could be influenced by stress. For example, people might be more prone to help a child beggar on the street if they feel stressed after an uncomfortable meeting at work. Even more worryingly, doctors who face life-and-death decisions might be influenced by the daily stress they experience.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)