Stefaan Verhulst
Book by Eric Racine: “Humanity faces a multitude of profound challenges at present: technological advances, environmental changes, rising inequality, and deep social and political pluralism. These transformations raise moral questions—questions about how we view ourselves and how we ought to engage with the world in the pursuit of human flourishing. In The Theory of Deliberative Wisdom, Eric Racine puts forward an original interdisciplinary ethics theory that offers both an explanation of the workings of human morality and a model for deliberation-based imaginative processes to tackle moral problems.
Drawing from a wide array of disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, neuroscience, and economics, this book offers an engaging account of situated moral agency and of ethical life as the pursuit of human flourishing. Moral experience, Racine explains, is accounted for in the form of situational units—morally problematic situations. These units are, in turn, theorized as actionable and participatory building blocks of moral existence mapping to mechanisms of episodic memory and to the construction of personal identity. Such explanations pave the way for an understanding of the social and psychological mechanisms of the awareness and neglect of morally problematic situations as well as of the imaginative ethical deliberation needed to respond to these situations. Deliberative wisdom is explained as an engaged and ongoing learning process about human flourishing…(More)”
Paper by Anna Colom and Agnes Czajka: “The paper argues that the Capability Approach can make a significant contribution to understanding the enablers of engaged citizenship. Using insights from critical citizenship studies and original empirical research on young people’s civic and political involvement in western Kenya, we argue that it is useful to think of the process of engaged citizenship as comprised of two distinct yet interrelated parts: activation and performance. We suggest that the Capability Approach (CA) can help us understand what resources and processes are needed for people to not only become activated but to also effectively perform their citizenship. Although the CA is rarely brought into conversation with critical citizenship studies literatures, we argue that it can be useful in both operationalising the insights of critical citizenship studies on citizenship engagement and illustrating how activation and performance can be effectively supported or catalysed….(More)”
Paper by Rashid Mushkani, Hugo Berard, Allison Cohen, Shin Koeski: “This paper proposes a Right to AI, which asserts that individuals and communities should meaningfully participate in the development and governance of the AI systems that shape their lives. Motivated by the increasing deployment of AI in critical domains and inspired by Henri Lefebvre’s concept of the Right to the City, we reconceptualize AI as a societal infrastructure, rather than merely a product of expert design. In this paper, we critically evaluate how generative agents, large-scale data extraction, and diverse cultural values bring new complexities to AI oversight. The paper proposes that grassroots participatory methodologies can mitigate biased outcomes and enhance social responsiveness. It asserts that data is socially produced and should be managed and owned collectively. Drawing on Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation and analyzing nine case studies, the paper develops a four-tier model for the Right to AI that situates the current paradigm and envisions an aspirational future. It proposes recommendations for inclusive data ownership, transparent design processes, and stakeholder-driven oversight. We also discuss market-led and state-centric alternatives and argue that participatory approaches offer a better balance between technical efficiency and democratic legitimacy…(More)”.
Paper by Joel Z. Leibo et al: “Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly placed in positions where their decisions have real consequences, e.g., moderating online spaces, conducting research, and advising on policy. Ensuring they operate in a safe and ethically acceptable fashion is thus critical. However, most solutions have been a form of one-size-fits-all “alignment”. We are worried that such systems, which overlook enduring moral diversity, will spark resistance, erode trust, and destabilize our institutions. This paper traces the underlying problem to an often-unstated Axiom of Rational Convergence: the idea that under ideal conditions, rational agents will converge in the limit of conversation on a single ethics. Treating that premise as both optional and doubtful, we propose what we call the appropriateness framework: an alternative approach grounded in conflict theory, cultural evolution, multi-agent systems, and institutional economics. The appropriateness framework treats persistent disagreement as the normal case and designs for it by applying four principles: (1) contextual grounding, (2) community customization, (3) continual adaptation, and (4) polycentric governance. We argue here that adopting these design principles is a good way to shift the main alignment metaphor from moral unification to a more productive metaphor of conflict management, and that taking this step is both desirable and urgent…(More)”.
Invest Europe: “The European Data Cooperative (EDC) is a joint initiative developed by Invest Europe and its national association partners to collect Europe-wide industry data on activity (fundraising, investments, & divestments), economic impact (Employment, Turnover, EBITDA, & CAPEX) and ESG.
The EDC platform is jointly owned and operated by the private equity and venture capital associations of Europe. It serves as a single data entry point for their members and other contributors across the continent. The EDC brings together:
- 4,000 firms
- 10,900 funds
- 86,700 portfolio companies
- 330,900 transactions
Using one platform with a standardised methodology allows us to have consistent, robust pan-European statistics that are comparable across the region…(More)”
Article by Heather Graci: “Contraceptives are available in Sub-Saharan Africa, but maternal deaths caused by unwanted pregnancies are still rampant. Refugee agencies support those forced to flee their homes, but don’t always know where they’ll go—or what they’ll need when they get there. AI-powered tutors provide crucial support to kids struggling in under-resourced schools, but may not treat their students equally.
These are the sorts of humanitarian challenges that featured at the seventh annual United Nations Behavioural Science Week earlier this month. Each year, the UN Behavioural Science Group brings together researchers and practitioners from inside and outside of the UN to discuss how to use behavioral science for social good. Practitioners are exposed to the latest research that could inform their work; academics glimpse how their ideas play out amid the chaos of the real world. And everyone learns about projects happening beyond their focus area. Experts in healthcare, finance, education, peace and security, and beyond share a common language—and common solutions—in behavioral science.
This year technology was a central theme. Panelists from organizations like UNICEF and the World Bank joined academic experts from behavioral science, data science, and AI to discuss how thoughtful, behaviorally-informed technologies can bolster global development and aid efforts.
I’ve curated three sessions from the week that capture the different ways this is happening. Digital assistants that boost the capacity of health care workers or teachers. Predictive models that help aid agencies send the right resources to the right regions. And just as AI can exacerbate bias, it can mitigate it too—as long as we understand how it intersects with different cultures as it’s deployed around the world…(More)”.
Article by Matthew Zeitlin: “Indiana has power. Indiana has transmission. Indiana has a business-friendly Republican government. Indiana is close to Chicago but — crucially — not in Illinois. All of this has led to a huge surge of data center development in the “Crossroads of America.” It has also led to an upswell of local opposition.
There are almost 30 active data center proposals in Indiana, plus five that have already been rejected in the past year, according to data collected by the environmentalist group Citizens Action Coalition. Google, Amazon, and Meta have all announced projects in the state since the beginning of 2024.
Nipsco, one of the state’s utilities, has projected 2,600 megawatts worth of new load by the middle of the next decade as its base scenario, mostly attributable to “large economic development projects.” In a more aggressive scenario, it sees 3,200 megawatts of new load — that’s three large nuclear reactors’ worth — by 2028 and 8,600 megawatts by 2035. While short of, say, the almost 36,500 megawatts worth of load growth planned in Georgia for the next decade, it’s still a vast range of outcomes that requires some kind of advanced planning.
That new electricity consumption will likely be powered by fossil fuels. Projected load growth in the state has extended a lifeline to Indiana’s coal-fired power plants, with retirement dates for some of the fleet being pushed out to late in the 2030s. It’s also created a market for new natural gas-fired plants that utilities say are necessary to power the expected new load.
State and local political leaders have greeted these new data center projects with enthusiasm, Ben Inskeep, the program director at CAC, told me. “Economic development is king here,” he said. “That is what all the politicians and regulators say their number one concern is: attracting economic development.”..(More)”.
Article by Hannah Chafetz and Stefaan Verhulst: “How can a question-based approach to philanthropy enable better learning and deeper evaluation across both sides of the partnership and help make progress towards long-term systemic change? That’s what Siegel Family Endowment (Siegel), a family foundation based in New York City, sought to answer by creating an Inquiry-Driven Grantmaking approach.
While many philanthropies continue to follow traditional practices that focus on achieving a set of strategic objectives, Siegel employs an inquiry-driven approach, which focuses on answering questions that can accelerate insights and iteration across the systems they seek to change. By framing their goal as “learning” rather than an “outcome” or “metric,” they aim to generate knowledge that can be shared across the whole field and unlock impact beyond the work on individual grants.
The Siegel approach centers on co-designing and iteratively refining questions with grantees to address evolving strategic priorities, using rapid iteration and stakeholder engagement to generate insights that inform both grantee efforts and the foundation’s decision-making.
Their approach was piloted in 2020, and refined and operationalized the years that followed. As of 2024, it was applied across the vast majority of their grantmaking portfolio. Laura Maher, Chief of Staff and Director of External Engagement at Siegel Family Endowment, notes: “Before our Inquiry-Driven Grantmaking approach we spent roughly 90% of our time on the grant writing process and 10% checking in with grantees, and now that’s balancing out more.”
Image of the Inquiry-Driven Grantmaking Process from the Siegel Family Endowment
Earlier this year, the DATA4Philanthropy team conducted two in-depth discussions with Siegel’s Knowledge and Impact team to discuss their Inquiry-Driven Grantmaking approach and what they learned thus far from applying their new methodology. While the Siegel team notes that there is still much to be learned, there are several takeaways that can be applied to others looking to initiate a questions-led approach.
Below we provide 10 emerging lessons from these discussions…(More)”.
Essay by Edward Tenner: “One of the great, underappreciated facts about our technology-driven age is that unintended consequences tend to outnumber intended ones. As much as we would like to believe that we are in control, scholars who have studied catastrophic failures have shown that humility is ultimately the only justifiable attitude…
Here’s a story about a revolution that never happened. Nearly 90 years ago, a 26-year-old newly credentialed Harvard sociology PhD and future American Philosophical Society member, Robert K. Merton, published a paper in the American Sociological Review that would become one of the most frequently cited in his discipline: “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.”While the language of the paper was modest, it offered an obvious but revolutionary insight: many or most phenomena in the social world are unintended – for better or worse. Today, even management gurus like Tom Peters acknowledge that, “Unintended consequences outnumber intended consequences. … Strategies rarely unfold as we imagined. Intended consequences are rare.”
Merton had promised a monograph on the history and analysis of the problem, with its “vast scope and manifold implications.” Somewhere along the way, however, he abandoned the project, perhaps because it risked becoming a book about everything. Moreover, his apparent retreat may have discouraged other social scientists from attempting it, revealing one of the paradoxes of the subject’s study: because it is so universal and important, it may be best suited for case studies rather than grand theories.
Ironically, while unintentionality-centered analysis might have produced a Copernican revolution in social science, it is more likely that it would have unleashed adverse unintended consequences for any scholar attempting it – just as Thomas Kuhn’s idea of scientific paradigms embroiled him in decades of controversies. Besides, there are also ideological barriers to the study of unintended consequences. For every enthusiast there seems to be a hater, and dwelling on the unintended consequences of an opponent’s policies invites retaliation in kind.
This was economist Albert O. Hirschman’s point in his own critique of the theme. Hirschman himself had formidable credentials as a student of unintended consequences. One of his most celebrated and controversial ideas, the “hiding hand,” was a spin-off of Adam Smith’s famous metaphor for the market (the invisible hand). In Development Projects Observed, Hirschman noted that many successful programs might never have been launched had all the difficulties been known; but once a commitment was made, human ingenuity prevailed, and new and unforeseen solutions were found. The Sydney Opera House, for example, exceeded its budget by 1,300%, but it turned out to be a bargain once it became Australia’s unofficial icon…(More)”
Article by Soumi Banerjee: “Artificial intelligence (AI) has made global movements, testimonies, and critiques seem just a swipe away. The digital realm, powered by machine learning and algorithmic recommendation systems, offers an abundance of visual, textual, and auditory information. With a few swipes or keystrokes, the unbounded world lies open before us. Yet this ‘openness’ conceals a fundamental paradox: the distinction between availability and accessibility.
What is technically available is not always epistemically accessible. What appears global is often algorithmically curated. And what is served to users under the guise of choice frequently reflects the imperatives of engagement, profit, and emotional resonance over critical understanding or cognitive expansion.
The transformative potential of AI in democratising access to information comes with risks. Algorithmic enclosure and content curation can deepen epistemic inequality, particularly for the youth, whose digital fluency often masks a lack of epistemic literacy. What we need is algorithmic transparency, civic education in media literacy, and inclusive knowledge formats…(More)”.