Challenging the neutrality myth in climate science and activism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Christel W. van Eck, Lydia Messling & Katharine Hayhoe: “The myth of a scientist as a purely rational thinker, a “brain in a jar” devoid of emotions and values, still exists in some scientific circles. However, philosophers of science have long shown that it is a fundamental misconception to believe that science can be entirely free of social, political, and ethical values, and function as a neutral entity. As Lynda Walsh explains compellingly in “Scientists as Prophets,” the question of how scientists ought to engage with society is a value judgement itself3. This is particularly true in complex crises like climate change where traditional democratic debate alone cannot ascertain the optimal course of action. Scientists often play a crucial role in such crises, not only through conducting rigorous research, but also through engaging in dialogue with society by framing their research in terms of societal values – which includes rejecting the notion of morally neutral engagement.

This school of thought was recently challenged in a comment in Nature Climate Action titled “The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism” In it, Ulf Büntgen, a Professor of Environmental Systems Analysis at Cambridge University, communicated his personal concerns about climate scientists engaging in activism. The comment sparked considerable debate on social media, particularly among climate scientists, many of whom reject the views presented by Büntgen.

We believe a response is necessary, as many of Büntgen’s assumptions are unnuanced or unjustified. It is difficult to provide a full critique when Büntgen has not clearly defined what he means by ‘climate activism’, ‘quasi-religious belief’, or ‘a priori interests’, nor explicit examples evidencing what sort of interaction he finds to be objectionable. However, whether scientists consider certain activities to be activism, and their opinions on colleagues who engage in such activities, along with the general public’s perception of these activities, has been the subject of multiple research studies. While the opinion of an individual scientist is interesting, we argue it is not representative of the broader community’s views nor does it reflect the efficacy of such actions. Furthermore, by making unilateral value-based judgements, we propose that Büntgen is engaging in precisely the activity he deprecates…(More)”

The Unaccountability Machine — why do big systems make bad decisions?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

FT Review of book by Dan Davies: “The starting point of Davies’ entertaining, insightful book is that the uncontrolled proliferation of accountability sinks is one of the central drivers of what historian Adam Tooze calls the “polycrisis” of the 21st century. Their influence reaches far beyond frustrated customers endlessly on hold to “computer says no” service departments. In finance, banking crises regularly recur — yet few individual bankers are found at fault. If politicians’ promises flop, they complain they have no power; the Deep State is somehow to blame.

The origin of the problem, Davies argues, is the managerial revolution that began after the second world war, abetted by the advent of cheap computing power and the diffusion of algorithmic decision-making into every sphere of life. These systems have ended up “acting like a car’s crumple-zone to shield any individual manager from a disastrous decision”, he writes. While attractive from the individual’s perspective, they scramble the feedback on which society as a whole depends.

Yet the story, Davies continues, is not so simple. Seen from another perspective, accountability sinks are entirely reasonable responses to the ever-increasing complexity of modern economies. Standardisation and explicit policies and procedures offer the only feasible route to meritocratic recruitment, consistent service and efficient work. Relying on the personal discretion of middle managers would simply result in a different kind of mess…(More)”.

The Arrival of Field Experiments in Economics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Timothy Taylor: “When most people think of “experiments,” they think of test tubes and telescopes, of Petri dishes and Bunsen burners. But the physical apparatus is not central to what an “experiment” means. Instead, what matters is the ability to specify different conditions–and then to observe how the differences in the underlying conditions alter the outcomes. When “experiments” are understood in this broader way, the application of “experiments” is expanded.

For example, back in 1881 when Louis Pasteur tested his vaccine for sheep anthrax, he gave the vaccine to half of a flock of sheep, expose the entire group to anthrax, and showed that those with the vaccine survived. More recently, the “Green Revolution” in agricultural technology was essentially a set of experiments, by systematically breeding plant varieties and then looking at the outcomes in terms of yield, water use, pest resistance, and the like.

This understanding of “experiment” can be applied in economics, as well. John A. List explains in “Field Experiments: Here Today Gone Tomorrow?” (American Economist, published online August 6, 2024). By “field experiments,” List is seeking to differentiate his topic from “lab experiments,” which for economists refers to experiments carried out in a classroom context, often with students as the subjects, and to focus instead on experiments that involve people in the “field”–that is, in the context of their actual economic activities, including work, selling and buying, charitable giving, and the like. As List points out, these kinds of economic experiments have been going on for decades. He points out that government agencies have been conducting field experiments for decades…(More)”.

How to rebuild democracy to truly harness the power of the people

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kyle Ellingson: “Many of us entered this so-called super-election year with a sense of foreboding. So far, not much has happened to allay those fears. Russia’s war on Ukraine is exacerbating a perception that democracy is threatened in Europe and beyond. In the US, Donald Trump, a presidential candidate with self-professed autocratic tendencies, has faced two assassination attempts. And more broadly, people seem to be losing faith in politics. “Most people from a diverse array of countries around the world lack confidence in the performance of their political institutions,” says a 2024 report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

On many objective measures, too, democracy isn’t functioning as it should. The systems we call democracies tend to favour the rich. Political violence is growing, as is legislative gridlock, and worldwide, elections are becoming less free and fair. Some 30 years after commentators crowed about the triumph of Western liberal democracy, their prediction seems further than ever from being realised. What happened?

According to Lex Paulson at the University Mohammed VI Polytechnic in Rabat, Morocco, we have lost sight of what democracy is. “We have made a terrible confusion between the system known as a republic – which relies on elections, parties and a permanent governing class – and the system known as a democracy, in which citizens directly participate in decisions and rotate power.” …(More)”.

China: Autocracy 2.0

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by David Y. Yang: “Autocracy 2.0, exemplified by modern China, is economically robust, technologically advanced, globally engaged, and controlled through subtle and sophisticated methods. What defines China’s political economy, and what drives Autocracy 2.0? What is its future direction? I start by discussing two key challenges autocracies face: incentives and information. I then describe Autocracy 1.0’s reliance on fear and repression to address these issues. It makes no credible promises, using coercion for compliance, resulting in a low-information environment. Next, I introduce Autocracy 2.0, highlighting its significant shift in handling commitment and information challenges. China uses economic incentives to align interests with regime survival, fostering support. It employs advanced bureaucratic structures and technology to manage incentives and information, enabling success in a high-information environment. Finally, I explore Autocracy 3.0’s potential. In China, forces might revert to Autocracy 1.0, using technology for state control as growth slows but aspirations stay high. Globally, modern autocracies, led by China, are becoming major geopolitical forces, challenging the liberal democratic order…(More)”.

The satellite spectrum battle that could shape the new space economy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Peggy Hollinger and Yasemin Craggs: “In early August, when corporate activity was in a summer lull, Elon Musk’s SpaceX quietly opened up a new front in a global battle over a scarce and precious resource: radio spectrum.

Its target was an obscure international regulation governing the way spectrum, the invisible highway of electromagnetic waves that enables all wireless technology, is shared by satellite operators in different orbits. And the chosen weapon was the US regulator, the Federal Communications Commission. 

On August 9, SpaceX petitioned the FCC to loosen globally agreed power limits on transmissions from operators like itself in low Earth orbit, the region of space up to 2,000km above the planet’s surface set to be a pivotal arena in the future of communication, transportation and defence.

The so-called equivalent power flux density rules were set more than 20 years ago to ensure signals from low Earth orbit did not interfere with those from systems in higher geostationary, or fixed, orbit.

SpaceX, which owns the world’s fastest-growing satellite broadband network, Starlink, told the regulator that these “antiquated power restrictions” were unfit for “the modern space age”. It went on to charge that the international process governing the rules had been hijacked by an alliance between the operators of older, geostationary systems and “America’s staunchest adversaries”. 

At stake was “US global competitiveness in the new space economy” and the future of satellite communication, it said. 

SpaceX’s broadside was the second attempt in less than a year to win a revision of these highly technical rules. Nine months ago at the World Radiocommunication Conference, where regulations governing spectrum use are decided, SpaceX and Project Kuiper — Amazon’s attempt to build a rival to Musk’s system — lost an initial attempt to win global support for a change to the power restrictions. 

Graphic explaining how radio interference can affect satellites

Although many in the industry believe a revision is long overdue, the discussions were tense and divisive, according to participants.

On one side were the upstart tech companies whose low Earth orbit satellite networks are threatening the business models of longer-established competitors with high-speed, low-latency broadband services…(More)”.

Wired Wisdom

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Eszter Hargittai and John Palfrey: “Everyone has that one older relative who loves to post misinformation on social media. That older coworker who fell prey to a phishing attack. Or a parent who still can’t quite get the hang of using emoji in texts. By popular account, these incidents are typical of older generations who inevitably struggle with tech woes. But is that the full story?

Absolutely not, according to the findings of Internet researchers Eszter Hargittai and John Palfrey. Their eye-opening book on the Internet’s fastest-growing demographic offers a more nuanced picture—debunking common myths about older adults’ Internet use to offer hope and a necessary call to action. Incorporating original interviews and survey results from thousands of people sixty and over, Wired Wisdom shows that many, in fact, use technology in ways that put younger peers to shame. Over-sixties are often nimble online, and quicker to abandon social media platforms that don’t meet their needs. Despite being targeted more often, they also may be less likely to fall for scams than younger peers. And fake news actually fools fewer people over sixty, who have far more experience evaluating sources and detecting propaganda. Still, there are unseen risks and missed opportunities for this group. Hargittai and Palfrey show that our stereotypes can be hurdles—keeping us from building intergenerational support communities, aiding loved ones to adopt new technology that may improve their lives, and helping us all thrive.

Full of surprising insights, Wired Wisdom helps push readers beyond ageist assumptions, offers practical advice for older tech users and their communities, and ultimately questions what it really means to age well online—no matter your birthdate…(More)”

Second-Order Agency

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Cass Sunstein: “Many people prize agency; they want to make their own choices. Many people also prize second-order agency, by which they decide whether and when to exercise first-order agency. First-order agency can be an extraordinary benefit or an immense burden. When it is an extraordinary benefit, people might reject any kind of interference, or might welcome a nudge, or might seek some kind of boost, designed to increase their capacities. When first-order agency is an immense burden, people might also welcome a nudge or might make some kind of delegation (say, to an employer, a doctor, an algorithm, or a regulator). These points suggests that the line between active choosing and paternalism can be illusory. When private or public institutions override people’s desire not to exercise first-order agency, and thus reject people’s exercise of second-order agency, they are behaving paternalistically, through a form of choice-requiring paternalism. Choice-requiring paternalism may compromise second-order agency. It might not be very nice to do that…(More)”.

Critical Dependencies: How power consolidation of digital infrastructures threatens democracies—and what we can do about it.

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Green Web Foundation: “We are at an inflection point in digital infrastructures. There is much conversation about the unprecedented speed and scale of our computational future. Significant investments are being made, especially as part of private and national efforts to “win the AI arms race.” Meanwhile, more data is becoming available about the harms of these systems. No one has perfect knowledge of the situation, and in some instances, information is being intentionally obscured or distorted. Amidst the confusion and scramble, well-resourced players are seizing strategic footholds and advancing their cause. This moment is called the “fog of enactment.”

Some of the wealthiest companies in the world spend billions in lobbying, sponsoring research, obscuring their emissions and building out parallel energy and digital infrastructures to further secure their market positions.

Meanwhile, deliberative democratic processes take time and resources. The public and, at times, democratically elected officials lack access to the data and decision-making about our digital futures. Furthermore, the technical expertise to evaluate these tradeoffs from a public interest perspective is structurally under-resourced.

This report seeks to call out these maneuvers and recommend pathways for funding in the public’s interest with a focus on the energy and climate impacts of digital infrastructures and harms caused by current ownership models. We call for actions that are ambitious, collaborative and intersectional to help redistribute more power to the public interest and to just and sustainable digital futures…(More)”.

Problem-solving matter

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by David C Krakauer and Chris Kempes: “What makes computation possible? Seeking answers to that question, a hardware engineer from another planet travels to Earth in the 21st century. After descending through our atmosphere, this extraterrestrial explorer heads to one of our planet’s largest data centres, the China Telecom-Inner Mongolia Information Park, 470 kilometres west of Beijing. But computation is not easily discovered in this sprawling mini-city of server farms. Scanning the almost-uncountable transistors inside the Information Park, the visiting engineer might­ be excused for thinking that the answer to their question lies in the primary materials driving computational processes: silicon and metal oxides. After all, since the 1960s, most computational devices have relied on transistors and semiconductors made from these metalloid materials.

If the off-world engineer had visited Earth several decades earlier, before the arrival of metal-oxide transistors and silicon semiconductors, they might have found entirely different answers to their question. In the 1940s, before silicon semiconductors, computation might appear as a property of thermionic valves made from tungsten, molybdenum, quartz and silica – the most important materials used in vacuum tube computers.

And visiting a century earlier, long before the age of modern computing, an alien observer might come to even stranger conclusions. If they had arrived in 1804, the year the Jacquard loom was patented, they might have concluded that early forms of computation emerged from the plant matter and insect excreta used to make the wooden frames, punch cards and silk threads involved in fabric-weaving looms, the analogue precursors to modern programmable machines.

But if the visiting engineer did come to these conclusions, they would be wrong. Computation does not emerge from silicon, tungsten, insect excreta or other materials. It emerges from procedures of reason or logic.

This speculative tale is not only about the struggles of an off-world engineer. It is also an analogy for humanity’s attempts to answer one of our most difficult problems: life. For, just as an alien engineer would struggle to understand computation through materials, so it is with humans studying our distant origins…(More)”.