Value capture occurs when an agent’s values are rich and subtle; they enter a social environment that presents simplified — typically quantified — versions of those values; and those simplified articulations come to dominate their practical reasoning. Examples include becoming motivated by FitBit’s step counts, Twitter Likes and Re-tweets, citation rates, ranked lists of best schools, and Grade Point Averages. We are vulnerable to value capture because of the competitive advantage that such crisp and clear expressions of value have in (...) our private reasoning and our public justification. There is, however, a price. In value capture, we take a central component of our autonomy — our ongoing deliberation over the exact articulation of our values — and we outsource it. And the metrics to which we outsource usually engineered for the interests of some external force, like a large-scale institution’s interest in cross-contextual comprehensibility and quick aggregability. That outsourcing cuts off one of the key benefits to personal deliberation. In value capture, we no longer adjust our values and their articulations in light of own rich experience of the world. Our values should often be carefully tailored to our particular selves or our small-scale communities, but in value capture, we buy our values off the rack. In some cases – like decreasing CO2 emissions – the costs of non-tailored values are outweighed by the benefit of precise collective coordination. In other cases, like in our aesthetic lives, they are not. This suggests that we should want different values suited to different scales. We should want value federalism. Some values are perhaps best pursued at the largest-scale level, others at smaller scales. The problem occurs when we exhibit an excess preference for the largest-scale values – when we consistently let the universal metrics swamp our quieter interests. (shrink)

According to most accounts of trust, you can only trust other people (or groups of people). To trust is to think that another has goodwill, or something to that effect. I sketch a different form of trust: the unquestioning attitude. What it is to trust, in this sense, is to settle one’s mind about something, to stop questioning it. To trust is to rely on a resource while suspending deliberation over its reliability. Trust lowers the barrier of monitoring, challenging, checking, (...) and questioning. Trust sets up open pipelines between yourself and parts of the external world. Trust permits external resources to have a similar relationship to one as one’s internal cognitive faculties. This creates efficiency, but at the price of exquisite vulnerability. We must trust in this way because we are cognitively limited beings in a cognitively overwhelming world. Crucially, we can hold the unquestioning attitude towards objects and technologies. When I trust my climbing rope, I stop worrying about its reliability. When I trust my online calendaring system, I simply go to the events indicated, without question. But, one might worry, how could one ever hold such a normatively loaded attitude as trust towards mere objects? How could it ever make sense to feel betrayed by an object? Trust is our engine for expanding and outsourcing our agency — for binding external processes into our practical selves. Thus, we can be betrayed by our smartphones in the same way that we can be betrayed by our memory. When we trust, we try to make something a part of our agency, and we are betrayed when our part lets us down. To unquestioningly trust something is to let it in—to attempt to bring it inside one’s practical functioning. This suggests a new form of gullibility: agential gullibility, which occurs when agents too hastily and carelessly integrate external resources into their own agency. (shrink)

Khi góc nhìn chủ quan được mở rộng, con người có thể tưởng tượng ra nhiều khả năng có thể xảy ra hơn, từ đó tăng cường sự sáng tạo của họ .

Khả năng sáng tạo là một trong những đặc điểm quan trọng phân biệt con người và các loài khác. Trong xã hội con người, sự sáng tạo cũng đóng vai trò quan trọng trong việc tạo ra lợi thế cạnh tranh cho cá nhân và tổ chức. Vì sự sáng tạo phụ thuộc vào quá trình tư duy của cá nhân, nên thông tin đầu vào là yếu tố quan trọng để khởi sinh quá trình sáng tạo. Vấn đề (...) đặt ra là loại thông tin đầu vào nào tốt hơn cho sự sáng tạo: thông tin có cấu trúc hay phi cấu trúc? (shrink)

Khi chúng ta nhìn nhận khả năng bền bỉ và phục hồi như một quá trình xử lý thông tin, chúng ta có thể hiểu được cách mà các yếu tố nội tại và ngoại vi tương tác để ảnh hưởng đến quá trình phục hồi ở mỗi cá nhân hoặc tổ chức.

Khi chúng ta nhìn nhận khả năng bền bỉ và phục hồi như một quá trình xử lý thông tin, chúng ta có thể hiểu được cách mà các yếu tố nội tại và ngoại vi tương tác để ảnh hưởng đến quá trình phục hồi ở mỗi cá nhân hoặc tổ chức. Từ đó, chúng ta có cơ hội hiểu rõ hơn về cách mà cá nhân và tổ chức phản ứng và thích ứng với căng thẳng và khả (...) năng phục hồi mà không bị ảnh hưởng bởi niềm tin và những quan điểm xã hội đa dạng. Điều này sẽ mang lại lợi ích lớn trong việc nghiên cứu và áp dụng các biện pháp hỗ trợ và can thiệp để tăng cường khả năng phục hồi và chống lại ảnh hưởng của căng thẳng trong xã hội. (shrink)

Encouraging a shift towards an “eco-surplus” mindset among stakeholders is essential for achieving long-term sustainability and safeguarding marine ecosystems. This mindset involves reframing environmental protection not as a hindrance but as a vital investment in the future. By recognizing the intrinsic value of conservation efforts, stakeholders can ensure the availability of ecosystem services crucial for human societies. Policymakers play a crucial role in this endeavor, engaging with local communities to cultivate a shared sense of environmental responsibility. Through grassroots initiatives like (...) education and awareness campaigns, stakeholders can develop a collective commitment to marine conservation. (shrink)

Nếu nhìn qua lăng kính lý thuyết mindsponge, thông tin trong thế giới vật lý là khách quan, nhưng cách mà con người hiểu và tận dụng thông tin đó sẽ bị ảnh hưởng bởi các yếu tố chủ quan. Trong thực tế, mức độ mà con người có thể hiểu và tận dụng một vật hoặc sự kiện phụ thuộc vào khả năng tư duy của họ để tưởng tượng các khả năng có thể xảy ra. Khả năng tư (...) duy này bị hạn chế bởi tập hợp thông tin tồn tại trong tâm trí, tạo ra một ranh giới chủ quan (subjective boundary) cho sự tưởng tượng. (shrink)

Policymakers can contribute to poverty reduction, economic growth, and sustainable development in rural areas by empowering farmers to overcome challenges and capitalize on opportunities. A resilient and sustainable livestock sector benefits both producers and consumers, ultimately enhancing food security and improving the overall welfare of rural communities.

Food security is one of the major concerns in the Philippines. Although livestock and poultry production accounts for a significant proportion of the country’s agricultural output, smallholder households are still vulnerable to food insecurity. The current study aims to examine how livestock production and selling difficulties affect smallholder households’ food-insecure conditions. For this objective, Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) analytics was employed on a dataset of the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Data in Emergencies Monitoring (DIEM) system. We found that production and (...) selling difficulties significantly adversely affect food insecurity in the Philippines. However, their effects vary according to the severity of food insecurity. In particular, production and selling difficulties affect the households’ likelihood of eating less healthy and nutritious food equally. However, the production difficulties have more negligible impacts on the possibility of skipping meals and even ambiguous impacts on the likelihood of not eating for a whole day compared to the effects of selling difficulties. Moreover, we also found that the market plays a crucial role in facilitating not only livestock trading but also livestock production (e.g., purchase of feed and medicines). Based on these findings, we suggest that the livestock market needs to be expanded and regulated to maintain the balancing prices between livestock products and products and services used for livestock production, and facilitate the product-exchanging mechanism. (shrink)

Hostile epistemology is the study of how environmental features exploit our cognitive vulnerabilities. I am particularly interested in those vulnerabilities arise from the basic character of our epistemic lives. We are finite beings with limited cognitive resources, perpetually forced to reasoning a rush. I focus on two sources of unavoidable vulnerability. First, we need to use cognitive shortcuts and heuristics to manage our limited time and attention. But hostile forces can always game the gap between the heuristic and the ideal. (...) Second, we need to trust others, and trust makes us vulnerable. In particular, we need to trust experts whose expertise lies beyond our individual ability to vet. So we must rely on various imperfect signals and proxies, like institutional affiliation, to manage our trust. We are forced to use these imperfect and exploitable forms of reasoning, in order to cope with a cognitively overwhelming world. I present the hostile epistemology framework as a counterbalance to vice epistemology, which tends to locate responsibility for bad beliefs in the character of the believer. I draw two conclusions from my analysis. First: suppose we accept that that only communities and institutions can know about the world. This deeply social approach doesn’t solve the problem of expert identification. The individual still faces a problem: given their incomplete understanding, how should the individual pick which group to trust? Second: we might have hoped to get some kind of static picture of the right principles of reasoning — but hostile epistemology presents a different picture. We have to use risky heuristics and shortcuts, which hostile forces can game and exploit. We can respond by shifting to a different set of heuristics, but this simply shifts the location of our vulnerabilities. These new heuristics are also exploitable. There is no end to this, only a constant struggle to adapt. Limited beings in a hostile epistemic environment are locked in an unending epistemic arms race. (shrink)

Games may seem like a waste of time, where we struggle under artificial rules for arbitrary goals. The author suggests that the rules and goals of games are not arbitrary at all. They are a way of specifying particular modes of agency. This is what make games a distinctive art form. Game designers designate goals and abilities for the player; they shape the agential skeleton which the player will inhabit during the game. Game designers work in the medium of agency. (...) Game-playing, then, illuminates a distinctive human capacity. We can take on ends temporarily for the sake of the experience of pursuing them. Game play shows that our agency is significantly more modular and more fluid than we might have thought. It also demonstrates our capacity to take on an inverted motivational structure. Sometimes we can take on an end for the sake of the activity of pursuing that end. (shrink)

Games occupy a unique and valuable place in our lives. Game designers do not simply create worlds; they design temporary selves. Game designers set what our motivations are in the game and what our abilities will be. Thus: games are the art form of agency. By working in the artistic medium of agency, games can offer a distinctive aesthetic value. They support aesthetic experiences of deciding and doing. -/- And the fact that we play games shows something remarkable about us. (...) Our agency is more fluid than we might have thought. In playing a game, we take on temporary ends; we submerge ourselves temporarily in an alternate agency. Games turn out to be a vessel for communicating different modes of agency, for writing them down and storing them. Games create an archive of agencies. And playing games is how we familiarize ourselves with different modes of agency, which helps us develop our capacity to fluidly change our own style of agency. (shrink)

Twitter makes conversation into something like a game. It scores our communication, giving us vivid and quantified feedback, via Likes, Retweets, and Follower counts. But this gamification doesn’t just increase our motivation to communicate; it changes the very nature of the activity. Games are more satisfying than ordinary life precisely because game-goals are simpler, cleaner, and easier to apply. Twitter is thrilling precisely because its goals have been artificially clarified and narrowed. When we buy into Twitter’s gamification, then our values (...) shift from the complex and pluralistic values of communication, to the narrower quest for popularity and virality. Twitter’s gamification bears some resemblance with the phenomena of echo chambers and moral outrage porn. In all these phenomena, we are instrumentalizing our ends for hedonistic reasons. We have shifted our aims in an activity, not because the new aims are more valuable, but in exchange for extra pleasure. (shrink)

Today, many people have realized that the climate change and biodiversity loss issues lie in how and to what extent humans consume products for their lives in the Anthropocene era. Consumerism has pushed natural resource exploitation to its peak, and the depletion of resources is becoming increasingly prevalent. The beauty and personal care industry has a large market and high profits, especially in the high-income segment. However, this advantage also carries the risk of facing scrutiny, investigations, and criticism from civil (...) society organizations, environmental activists, and consumers. More than anyone else, the industry is vulnerable to the perils of unfavourable societal assessments, particularly the repercussions of consumer-led boycott actions. In this discourse, we suggest that, given the current circumstances, it is imperative for multinational beauty corporations to take a proactive role in allocating resources towards the development of sustainable agriculture practices. This entails not only advocating for the widespread adoption of environmentally conscious production methods but also dedicating efforts towards conducting research and innovation in the area of nature-friendly manufacturing techniques. Doing so will help demonstrate their commitment to the environment and actively provide convincing evidence to consumers of their social responsibility through emission reduction and biodiversity conservation activities. (shrink)

There seems to be a deep tension between two aspects of aesthetic appreciation. On the one hand, we care about getting things right. On the other hand, we demand autonomy. We want appreciators to arrive at their aesthetic judgments through their own cognitive efforts, rather than deferring to experts. These two demands seem to be in tension; after all, if we want to get the right judgments, we should defer to the judgments of experts. The best explanation, I suggest, is (...) that aesthetic appreciation is something like a game. When we play a game, we try to win. But often, winning isn’t the point; playing is. Aesthetic appreciation involves the same flipped motivational structure: we aim at the goal of correctness, but having correct judgments isn’t the point. The point is the engaged process of interpreting, investigating, and exploring the aesthetic object. Deferring to aesthetic testimony, then, makes the same mistake as looking up the answer to a puzzle, rather than solving it for oneself. The shortcut defeats the whole point. This suggests a new account of aesthetic value: the engagement account. The primary value of the activity of aesthetic appreciation lies in the process of trying to generate correct judgments, and not in having correct judgments. -/- *There is an audio version available: look for the Soundcloud link, below.*. (shrink)

In her BBC Reith Lectures on Trust, Onora O’Neill offers a short, but biting, criticism of transparency. People think that trust and transparency go together but in reality, says O'Neill, they are deeply opposed. Transparency forces people to conceal their actual reasons for action and invent different ones for public consumption. Transparency forces deception. I work out the details of her argument and worsen her conclusion. I focus on public transparency – that is, transparency to the public over expert domains. (...) I offer two versions of the criticism. First, the epistemic intrusion argument: The drive to transparency forces experts to explain their reasoning to non-experts. But expert reasons are, by their nature, often inaccessible to non-experts. So the demand for transparency can pressure experts to act only in those ways for which they can offer public justification. Second, the intimate reasons argument: In many cases of practical deliberation, the relevant reasons are intimate to a community and not easily explicable to those who lack a particular shared background. The demand for transparency, then, pressures community members to abandon the special understanding and sensitivity that arises from their particular experiences. Transparency, it turns out, is a form of surveillance. By forcing reasoning into the explicit and public sphere, transparency roots out corruption — but it also inhibits the full application of expert skill, sensitivity, and subtle shared understandings. The difficulty here arises from the basic fact that human knowledge vastly outstrips any individual’s capacities. We all depend on experts, which makes us vulnerable to their biases and corruption. But if we try to wholly secure our trust — if we leash groups of experts to pursuing only the goals and taking only the actions that can be justified to the non-expert public — then we will undermine their expertise. We need both trust and transparency, but they are in essential tension. This is a deep practical dilemma; it admits of no neat resolution, but only painful compromise. (shrink)

I propose to study one problem for epistemic dependence on experts: how to locate experts on what I will call cognitive islands. Cognitive islands are those domains for knowledge in which expertise is required to evaluate other experts. They exist under two conditions: first, that there is no test for expertise available to the inexpert; and second, that the domain is not linked to another domain with such a test. Cognitive islands are the places where we have the fewest resources (...) for evaluating experts, which makes our expert dependences particularly risky. -/- Some have argued that cognitive islands lead to the complete unusability of expert testimony: that anybody who needs expert advice on a cognitive island will be entirely unable to find it. I argue against this radical form of pessimism, but propose a more moderate alternative. I demonstrate that we have some resources for finding experts on cognitive islands, but that cognitive islands leave us vulnerable to an epistemic trap which I will call runaway echo chambers. In a runaway echo chamber, our inexpertise may lead us to pick out bad experts, which will simply reinforce our mistaken beliefs and sensibilities. (shrink)

The feeling of clarity can be dangerously seductive. It is the feeling associated with understanding things. And we use that feeling, in the rough-and-tumble of daily life, as a signal that we have investigated a matter sufficiently. The sense of clarity functions as a thought-terminating heuristic. In that case, our use of clarity creates significant cognitive vulnerability, which hostile forces can try to exploit. If an epistemic manipulator can imbue a belief system with an exaggerated sense of clarity, then they (...) can induce us to terminate our inquiries too early — before we spot the flaws in the system. How might the sense of clarity be faked? Let’s first consider the object of imitation: genuine understanding. Genuine understanding grants cognitive facility. When we understand something, we categorize its aspects more easily; we see more connections between its disparate elements; we can generate new explanations; and we can communicate our understanding. In order to encourage us to accept a system of thought, then, an epistemic manipulator will want the system to provide its users with an exaggerated sensation of cognitive facility. The system should provide its users with the feeling that they can easily and powerfully create categorizations, generate explanations, and communicate their understanding. And manipulators have a significant advantage in imbuing their systems with a pleasurable sense of clarity, since they are freed from the burdens of accuracy and reliability. I offer two case studies of seductively clear systems: conspiracy theories; and the standardized, quantified value systems of bureaucracies. (shrink)

In this note, we consider a Merton model for default risk, where the firm’s value is driven by a Brownian motion and a compound Poisson process.

Bây giờ, cuộc chiến với tổn thất đa dạng sinh học đang lan rộng sang ngành công nghiệp làm đẹp. Công nghiệp thời trang đã từng chịu áp lực trước các ảnh hưởng môi trường tiêu cực, và đang phải điều chỉnh lớn, nhất là với thời trang nhanh. Nhưng món chăm sóc thẩm mỹ dường như đang chịu áp lực gia tăng dần. Ngành hàng thẩm mỹ và chăm sóc cá nhân có doanh số rất lớn và lợi nhuận (...) cao, đặc biệt đối với phân khúc thu nhập cao. Tuy nhiên, lợi thế này cũng tiềm ẩn rủi ro phải đối diện với những quan sát, nghiên cứu, điều tra và cả chỉ trích của các tổ chức xã hội dân sự, các phong trào hoạt động môi trường, và cả người tiêu dùng. Hơn ai hết, ngành công nghiệp này có độ nhạy rất cao với rủi ro của các ý kiến đánh giá tiêu cực xã hội, nhất là hậu quả nặng nề của các phong trào tẩy chay tiêu dùng. Sắc thái mới nhất và sẽ chỉ có thể gia tăng khi mà sức khỏe hệ sinh thái toàn cầu đang suy giảm chính là các sản phẩm có liên quan tới phát thải và tổn thất môi sinh, cụ thể hơn là tổn thất đa dạng sinh học do chặt phá rừng và canh tác nông nghiệp gây tác hại lâu dài. (shrink)

Trung Quốc là nền kinh tế lớn hàng đầu thế giới, vận hành với hiệu suất cao để đáp ứng nhu cầu sinh kế của hơn 1,4 tỷ người dân, và cung cấp một lượng hàng hóa công nghệ, tiêu dùng và cả nông phẩm tới thế giới. Hệ quả tất yếu của quá trình tăng trưởng liên tục hơn 4 thập niên là việc sử dụng tài nguyên, và trong quá trình sản xuất, chế tạo, chế biến cũng sản (...) sinh ra một lượng khí nhà kính (GHG) tích lũy khổng lồ phát thải vào khí quyển. Trong một thống kê được đăng trên The Guardian năm 2017, thế giới đã nhận thấy trong giai đoạn 1988-2015, 100 tổ hợp công nghiệp hàng đầu thế giới chịu trách nhiệm cho việc phát thải tới 71% tổng tồn lượng GHG trong khí quyển. Dẫn đầu danh sách này trên phương diện quốc gia là Trung Quốc, với thống kê chỉ 5 đại công ty Trung Quốc đã chiếm tới gần 17% tổng lượng phát thải, trong đó tổ hợp ngành than có trách nhiệm lớn nhất, tới 14,32%. Sau những tiến bộ công nghệ vượt bậc cũng như tích lũy thặng dư nền kinh tế, quá trình hiện đại hóa ở Trung Quốc sang thời kỳ Chủ tịch Tập Cận Bình đã chuyển hướng sang bảo vệ môi trường với các mục tiêu phát thải nghiêm ngặt. Chẳng hạn như xác định nhóm ngành sản xuất gang thép với vai trò lớn trong mục tiêu giảm phát thải GHG, chính phủ và lãnh đạo công nghiệp liên tục tìm kiếm giải pháp cho sự hạn chế nguồn tài nguyên, thúc đẩy khuếch tán công nghệ, ứng dụng tiến bộ trong giảm phát thải và thu giữ, chôn lấp các-bon, thích hợp với ngành thép, dựa trên đánh giá bằng hệ thống phân tích hướng tới giải quyết mục tiêu biến đổi khí hậu có tên viết tắt “C3IAM/NET-IS.”. (shrink)

We offer an account of the generic use of the term “porn”, as seen in recent usages such as “food porn” and “real estate porn”. We offer a definition adapted from earlier accounts of sexual pornography. On our account, a representation is used as generic porn when it is engaged with primarily for the sake of a gratifying reaction, freed from the usual costs and consequences of engaging with the represented content. We demonstrate the usefulness of the concept of generic (...) porn by using it to isolate a new type of such porn: moral outrage porn. Moral outrage porn is representations of moral outrage, engaged with primarily for the sake of the resulting gratification, freed from the usual costs and consequences of engaging with morally outrageous content. Moral outrage porn is dangerous because it encourages the instrumentalization of one’s empirical and moral beliefs, manipulating their content for the sake of gratification. Finally, we suggest that when using porn is wrong, it is often wrong because it instrumentalizes what ought not to be instrumentalized. (shrink)

In our life with science, we trust experts; we form judgements by inference from past evidence. We conduct ourselves very differently in the aesthetic domain. We avoid deferring to aesthetic experts. We form our judgements through direct perception of particulars rather than through inference. Why the difference? I suggest that we avoid aesthetic testimony and aesthetic inference, not because they’re unusable, but because we have adopted social norms to avoid them. Aesthetic appreciation turns out to be something like a game. (...) We have laid down certain rules and restrictions in order to shape a kind of activity we cherish. And aesthetic properties turn out to be a kind of social construct. Much like the goal of a game, they are constituted in part by our obedience to certain rules. The norms of aesthetic life are different from those of science because our purposes are different. We engage in science to get the right answers; we engage in aesthetic appreciation to be absorbed in the activity of the sensuous perception of particulars. Our aesthetic practices are a constructed shelter from science; they restore to us a small domain where we may once again engage in our own sensuous perception of particulars. (shrink)

Thông tin là nguyên liệu quan trọng trong đời sống hiện đại. Dường như, đô thị là nơi tập trung nhiều thông tin hơn cả, do hệ thống hạ tầng được đầu tư tốt, và thói quen tiêu dùng thông tin cũng phổ biến. Ngoài ra, tính sẵn sàng chi trả cho thông tin có giá trị cũng làm cho nền kinh tế dựa trên thông tin phát đạt ở đô thị. Tuy nhiên, cũng vì vậy mà nguồn gốc thiên (...) nhiên của một lượng thông tin vô giá trong đời sống con người đã tích tụ cả ngàn năm, đôi khi chưa được nhận thức đúng mức. (shrink)

What could ground normative restrictions concerning cultural appropriation which are not grounded by independent considerations such as property rights or harm? We propose that such restrictions can be grounded by considerations of intimacy. Consider the familiar phenomenon of interpersonal intimacy. Certain aspects of personal life and interpersonal relationships are afforded various protections in virtue of being intimate. We argue that an analogous phenomenon exists at the level of large groups. In many cases, members of a group engage in shared practices (...) that contribute to a sense of common identity, such as wearing certain hair or clothing styles or performing a certain style of music. Participation in such practices can generate relations of group intimacy, which can ground certain prerogatives in much the same way that interpersonal intimacy can. One such prerogative is making what we call an appropriation claim. An appropriation claim is a request from a group member that non-members refrain from appropriating a given element of the group’s culture. Ignoring appropriation claims can constitute a breach of intimacy. But, we argue, just as for the prerogatives of interpersonal intimacy, in many cases there is no prior fact of the matter about whether the appropriation of a given cultural practice constitutes a breach of intimacy. It depends on what the group decides together. (shrink)

Hậu quả và ảnh hưởng của biến đổi khí hậu, mất đa dạng sinh thái, và suy thoái môi trường đang dần trở nên rõ ràng hơn. Điều này cũng kéo theo sự gia tăng nhanh chóng các mâu thuẫn và xung đột xã hội. Chính vì thế, trong những năm gần đây, việc kiện tụng liên quan đến môi trường đang ngày trở nên nhiều hơn, và quy mô cũng lớn hơn, đặc biệt là giữa các công ty và (...) nhà hoạt động môi trường. Những vụ kiện này thường xoay quanh các vấn đề quan trọng như biến đổi khí hậu, ô nhiễm, khai thác tài nguyên hủy hoại môi trường sống, gây rối loạn hệ sinh thái, hủy diệt đa dạng sinh học, và tiêu diệt nguồn sinh kế của người dân. Để đạt được các mục tiêu giảm biến đổi khí hậu, bảo vệ môi trường và môi sinh, đồng thời đảm bảo sự phát triển bền vững, cũng như là công lý cho cả con người và thiên nhiên, chính quyền và hệ thống tư pháp cần hiểu rõ bản chất bản chất của các mâu thuẫn dẫn đến cuộc chiến pháp lý về môi trường. Bài viết này có mục đích tìm hiểu bối cảnh phức tạp của các cuộc chiến pháp lý về môi trường, làm sáng tỏ tầm quan trọng và kết quả tiềm tàng của chúng, từ đó chỉ ra một số lỗ hổng pháp lý và khiếu kiện môi trường tại Việt Nam. (shrink)

Chứng nhận trung hòa carbon thường được các chính phủ trao cho các doanh nghiệp và tổ chức đã đạt được trạng thái trung hòa carbon một cách đáng tin cậy. Vì thế, những doanh nghiệp và tổ chức đạt được chứng nhận được ghi nhận là có tham gia vào nỗ lực chung để giảm bớt tác động tiêu cực của con người đối với môi trường. Một số doanh nghiệp đã cố gắng có được chứng nhận này và (...) sử dụng nó như một phương tiện truyền thông để “tẩy xanh” và quảng bá cho sản phẩm. (shrink)

Đi ngược lại với xu hướng thời trang nhanh này chính là Canada Goose - một thương hiệu thời trang cao cấp của Canada, vốn nổi tiếng với những hoạt động bảo vệ môi trường của mình từ những ngày đầu thành lập.

Có thể tất cả chúng ta đều đã nghe đâu đó về cụm từ biến đổi khí hậu và sự nóng lên của trái đất, và kèm theo đó là những hậu quả nghiêm trọng của nó. Tuy nhiên, nhưng các thông tin và khái niệm đấy không còn xa xôi trên sách báo hay các nghiên cứu khoa học nữa, mà đang dần trở nên rõ ràng hơn. Điều này đồng nghĩa với việc tình hình biến đổi khí hậu (...) đã trở nên rất nguy cấp. Mùa hè 2023 vừa qua, người dân trên toàn thế giới đã thực sự phải nếm trải một phần nào đấy hậu quả của biến đổi khí hậu. Bài báo của Rannard đã giúp thống kê các sự kiện thời tiết cực đoan năm 2023 và cho chúng ta thấy rõ hơn về thực trạng đáng báo động của biến đổi khí hậu. (shrink)

The theory and culture of the arts has largely focused on the arts of objects, and neglected the arts of action – the “process arts”. In the process arts, artists create artifacts to engender activity in their audience, for the sake of the audience’s aesthetic appreciation of their own activity. This includes appreciating their own deliberations, choices, reactions, and movements. The process arts include games, urban planning, improvised social dance, cooking, and social food rituals. In the traditional object arts, the (...) central aesthetic properties occur in the artistic artifact itself. It is the painting that is beautiful; the novel that is dramatic. In the process arts, the aesthetic properties occur in the activity of the appreciator. It is the game player’s own decisions that are elegant, the rock climber’s own movement that is graceful, and the tango dancers’ rapport that is beautiful. The artifact’s role is to call forth and shape that activity, guiding it along aesthetic lines. I offer a theory of the process arts. Crucially, we must distinguish between the designed artifact and the prescribed focus of aesthetic appreciation. In the object arts, these are one and the same. The designed artifact is the painting, which is also the prescribed focus of appreciation. In the process arts, they are different. The designed artifact is the game, but the appreciator is prescribed to appreciate their own activity in playing the game. Next, I address the complex question of who the artist really is in a piece of process art — the designer or the active appreciator? Finally, I diagnose the lowly status of the process arts. (shrink)

What is a game? What are we doing when we play a game? What is the value of playing games? Several different philosophical subdisciplines have attempted to answer these questions using very distinctive frameworks. Some have approached games as something like a text, deploying theoretical frameworks from the study of narrative, fiction, and rhetoric to interrogate games for their representational content. Others have approached games as artworks and asked questions about the authorship of games, about the ontology of the work (...) and its performance. Yet others, from the philosophy of sport, have focused on normative issues of fairness, rule application, and competition. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of several different philosophical approaches to games and, hopefully, demonstrate the relevance and value of the different approaches to each other. Early academic attempts to cope with games tried to treat games as a subtype of narrative and to interpret games exactly as one might interpret a static, linear narrative. A faction of game studies, self-described as “ludologists,” argued that games were a substantially novel form and could not be treated with traditional tools for narrative analysis. In traditional narrative, an audience is told and interprets the story, where in a game, the player enacts and creates the story. Since that early debate, theorists have attempted to offer more nuanced accounts of how games might achieve similar ends to more traditional texts. For example, games might be seen as a novel type of fiction, which uses interactive techniques to achieve immersion in a fictional world. Alternately, games might be seen as a new way to represent causal systems, and so a new way to criticize social and political entities. Work from contemporary analytic philosophy of art has, on the other hand, asked questions whether games could be artworks and, if so, what kind. Much of this debate has concerned the precise nature of the artwork, and the relationship between the artist and the audience. Some have claimed that the audience is a cocreator of the artwork, and so games are a uniquely unfinished and cooperative art form. Others have claimed that, instead, the audience does not help create the artwork; rather, interacting with the artwork is how an audience member appreciates the artist's finished production. Other streams of work have focused less on the game as a text or work, and more on game play as a kind of activity. One common view is that game play occurs in a “magic circle.” Inside the magic circle, players take on new roles, follow different rules, and actions have different meanings. Actions inside the magic circle do not have their usual consequences for the rest of life. Enemies of the magic circle view have claimed that the view ignores the deep integration of game life from ordinary life and point to gambling, gold farming, and the status effects of sports. Philosophers of sport, on the other hand, have approached games with an entirely different framework. This has lead into investigations about the normative nature of games—what guides the applications of rules and how those rules might be applied, interpreted, or even changed. Furthermore, they have investigated games as social practices and as forms of life. (shrink)

What is the value of intellectual playfulness? Traditional characterizations of the ideal thinker often leave out playfulness; the ideal inquirer is supposed to be sober, careful, and conscientiousness. But elsewhere we find another ideal: the laughing sage, the playful thinker. These are models of intellectual playfulness. Intellectual playfulness, I suggest, is the disposition to try out alternate belief systems for fun – to try on radically different perspectives for the sheer pleasure of it. But what would the cog-nitive value be (...) of such playfulness? I suggest that intellectual playfulness function as, at the very least, a kind of intellectual insurance policy against epistemic traps. An epistemic trap is a belief system that re-directs good-faith inquiry to bad results. Am epistemic trap manipulates background beliefs to fend off contrary evidence. For example, a conspiracy theory might include a set of beliefs about how the mainstream media has been taken over by some vicious cabal. Normal epistemic attempts will be captured by a well-wrought epistemic trap, because normal attempts at inquiry are guided by these background beliefs -- which set what counts as a plausible path to explore, and what is implausible or beyond the pale. And a clever epistemic trap will manipulate those background beliefs for ill effect. Intellectual playfulness, on the other hand, isn’t motivated by an epistemic interest in the truth, but in the sheer pleasure of intellectual exploration. Since intellectual playfulness isn’t oriented towards the truth, it won’t be constrained by an agent’s background beliefs – it won’t, for example, prefer to investigate apparently more plausible pathways. Intellectual playfulness offers an opportunity to escape from epistemic traps. But intellectual playfulness has its own limitations. It will only drive us to explore belief systems when that exploration is fun. What we need is an array of differently-motivated exploratory tendencies – empathy, curiosity, playfulness – each of which will each cover for the others’ limitations. (shrink)

Mô hình lý thuyết MTAM giúp tăng cường sự hiểu biết về cách con người đón nhận và chấp nhận các công nghệ, giúp tăng khả năng ứng dụng công nghệ mới trong xã hội và doanh nghiệp, đặc biệt là công nghệ AI cảm xúc.

Trong 2 ngày, từ mùng 3 đến 4 tháng 11, tại Hà Nội đã diễn ra các phiên sinh hoạt khoa học do Viện Nghiên cứu Cao cấp về Toán (VIASM) và Trường Đại học Hà Nội (HANU) đồng tổ chức. Thông qua khoảng thời gian tương đối gọn gàng, một phần của chương trình đã giúp mang phương pháp phân tích giúp ứng dụng trong công việc nghiên cứu khoa học xã hội và nhân văn có tên gọi “BMF (...) Analytics” (gọi tắt là BMF) đến với những người tham dự chương trình. (shrink)

Starbucks, nhãn hiệu cà phê nổi tiếng toàn cầu, đã và đang truyền thông về việc theo đuổi mục tiêu phát triển bền vững trong nhiều năm liền. Công ty đã đặt mục tiêu trở sử dụng hiệu quả tài nguyên vào năm 2030, với việc giảm 50% khí thải carbon, nước, và chất thải.

Games have a complex, and seemingly paradoxical structure: they are both competitive and cooperative, and the competitive element is required for the cooperative element to work out. They are mechanisms for transforming competition into cooperation. Several contemporary philosophers of sport have located the primary mechanism of conversion in the mental attitudes of the players. I argue that these views cannot capture the phenomenological complexity of game-play, nor the difficulty and moral complexity of achieving cooperation through game-play. In this paper, I (...) present a different account of the relationship between competition and cooperation. My view is a distributed view of the conversion: success depends on a large number of features. First, the players must achieve the right motivational state: playing for the sake of the struggle, rather than to win. Second, successful transformation depends on a large number of extra-mental features, including good game design, and social and institutional features. (shrink)

Văn hóa thặng dư sinh thái là tập hợp các thái độ, giá trị, niềm tin và hành vi bảo vệ và tôn tạo môi trường được chia sẻ bởi một cộng đồng nhằm giảm tác động tiêu cực của con người tới môi trường, giúp bảo tồn và phục hồi thiên nhiên. Đây được xem là giải pháp để con người có thể sống hòa hợp với thiên nhiên và hướng tới bảo vệ môi trường một cách dài hạn (...) và bền vững. Việc phổ biến và xây dựng văn hóa thặng dư môi trường trên quy mô dân số lớn hẳn sẽ gặp nhiều khó khăn, nhưng không phải là không thể. Thành phố Kiel – có dân số xấp xỉ 250 nghìn người và cũng là thành phố đầu tiên của Đức nhận được chứng nhận Zero Waste (Không Rác thải) từ tổ chức Zero Watse Eurpoe (Không Rác thải Châu Âu) – là một ví dụ điển hình. (shrink)

Theo một nghiên cứu mới được công bố trên tập san Environmental Chemistry Letters của các nhà khoa học Nhật Bản, vi nhựa đã được phát hiện trong các đám mây xung quanh Núi Phú Sĩ và Núi Oyama ở độ cao khoảng 1300-3776 m.

In The Great Endarkenment, Elijah Millgram argues that the hyper-specialization of expert domains has led to an intellectual crisis. Each field of human knowledge has its own specialized jargon, knowledge, and form of reasoning, and each is mutually incomprehensible to the next. Furthermore, says Millgram, modern scientific practical arguments are draped across many fields. Thus, there is no person in a position to assess the success of such a practical argument for themselves. This arrangement virtually guarantees that mistakes will accrue (...) whenever we engage in cross-field practical reasoning. Furthermore, Millgram argues, hyper-specialization makes intellectual autonomy extremely difficult. Our only hope is to provide better translations between the fields, in order to achieve intellectual transparency. I argue against Millgram’s pessimistic conclusion about intellectual autonomy, and against his suggested solution of translation. Instead, I take his analysis to reveal that there are actually several very distinct forms intellectual autonomy that are significantly in tension. One familiar kind is direct autonomy, where we seek to understand arguments and reasons for ourselves. Another kind is delegational autonomy, where we seek to find others to invest with our intellectual trust when we cannot understand. A third is management autonomy, where we seek to encapsulate fields, in order to manage their overall structure and connectivity. Intellectual transparency will help us achieve direct autonomy, but many intellectual circumstances require that we exercise delegational and management autonomy. However, these latter forms of autonomy require us to give up on transparency. (shrink)

Our life with art is suffused with trust. We don’t just trust one another’s aesthetic testimony; we trust one another’s aesthetic actions. Audiences trust artists to have made it worth their while; artists trust audiences to put in the effort. Without trust, audiences would have little reason to put in the effort to understand difficult and unfamiliar art. I offer a theory of aesthetic trust, which highlights the importance of trust in aesthetic sincerity. We trust in another’s aesthetic sincerity when (...) we rely on them to fulfill their commitments to act for aesthetic reasons — rather than for, say, financial, social, or political reasons. We feel most thoroughly betrayed by an artist, not when they make bad art, but when they sell out. This teaches us something about the nature of trust in general. According to many standard theories, trust involves thinking the trusted to be cooperative or good-natured. But trust in aesthetic sincerity is different. We trust artists to be true to their own aesthetic sensibility, which might involve selfishly ignoring their audience’s needs. Why do we care so much about an artist’s sincerity, rather than merely trusting them to make good art? We emphasize sincerity when wish to encourage originality, rather than to demand success along predictable lines. And we ask for sincerity when our goal is to discover a shared sensibility. In moral life, we often try to force convergence through coordinated effort. But in aesthetic life, we often hope for the lovely discovery that our sensibilities were similar all along. And for that we need to ask for sincerity, rather than overt coordination. (shrink)

The current debate over aesthetic testimony typically focuses on cases of doxastic repetition — where, when an agent, on receiving aesthetic testimony that p, acquires the belief that p without qualification. I suggest that we broaden the set of cases under consideration. I consider a number of cases of action from testimony, including reconsidering a disliked album based on testimony, and choosing an artistic educational institution from testimony. But this cannot simply be explained by supposing that testimony is usable for (...) action, but unusable for doxastic repetition. I consider a new asymmetry in the usability aesthetic testimony. Consider the following cases: we seem unwilling to accept somebody hanging a painting in their bedroom based merely on testimony, but entirely willing to accept hanging a painting in a museum based merely on testimony. The switch in intuitive acceptability seems to track, in some complicated way, the line between public life and private life. These new cases weigh against a number of standing theories of aesthetic testimony. I suggest that we look further afield, and that something like a sensibility theory, in the style of John McDowell and David Wiggins, will prove to be the best fit for our intuitions for the usability of aesthetic testimony. I propose the following explanation for the new asymmetry: we are willing to accept testimony about whether a work merits being found beautiful; but we are unwilling to accept testimony about whether something actually is beautiful. (shrink)

The digital environment, particularly, fosters the creation of social and economic values, resulting in a heightened need for a skilled workforce proficient in navigating, operating, and creating values within this digital landscape.

Thuật ngữ "sự thông thái" hay "trí tuệ" thường được sử dụng và truyền đạt qua các thế hệ như một hình thức thể hiện cơ sở hiểu biết chung về cách thức sống, được tích lũy và kế thừa từ một nền văn hóa sang nền văn hóa khác. Có trí tuệ hay trở nên thông thái là khao khát của nhiều người bởi lẽ nó không chỉ biểu hiện của sự thông minh, mà còn liên quan đến khả (...) năng hiểu biết, sự linh hoạt trong tư duy, và khả năng thích ứng với môi trường xã hội. Khả năng lắng nghe, sẵn sàng học hỏi từ người khác và khả năng cân nhắc kỹ lưỡng về những hậu quả ngắn hạn hay lâu dài là những phẩm chất quan trọng của một người có trí tuệ và khôn ngoan. (shrink)

Art can be addressed, not just to individuals, but to groups. Art can even be part of how groups think to themselves – how they keep a grip on their values over time. I focus on monuments as a case study. Monuments, I claim, can function as a commitment to a group value, for the sake of long-term action guidance. Art can function here where charters and mission statements cannot, precisely because of art’s powers to capture subtlety and emotion. In (...) particular, art can serve as the vessel for group emotions, by making emotional content sufficiently public so as to be the object of a group commitment. Art enables groups to guide themselves with values too subtle to be codified. (shrink)

I propose an account of aesthetic value, where aesthetic value lies in the process of aesthetic engagement: in our activity of perceiving, guiding our attention, interpreting, and otherwise wrestling with aesthetic objects. It also includes our social activities of engagement: arguing with each other, writing criticism, making top-ten lists. (This is a short summary of a view developed in greater detail elsewhere.).

The book is a collection of story pieces about the journey of the Kingfisher, who is powerful but also lonely. I have been so impressed by the way that the main character, Kingfisher, is charted throughout the whole book. His interactions with other characters in each story carry valuable lessons in real, human life.

According to some, the current political fracture is best described as political polarization – where extremism and political separation infest an entire whole population. Political polarization accounts often point to the psychological phenomenon of belief polarization – where being in a like-minded groups tends to boost confidence. The political polarization story is an essentially symmetrical one, where both sides are subject to the same basic dividing forces and cognitive biases, and are approximately as blame-worthy. On a very different account, what's (...) going on is best described propaganda – where a discrete set of bad actors have manipulated some part of the media environ-ment. The propaganda story is usually told as a highly asymmetrical story, where only some media consumers are under the spell of the propagandists. Which is right? I consider two analyses of the 2016 American election: Robert Talisse's polarization-style account in Overdoing Democracy, and Benkler et. al.'s propaganda-style account in Network Propaganda. I suggest that the propaganda account has better empirical support. I also offer a diagnosis of the appeal of the polarization story. Those who accept a polarization account are often political centrists, who accuse those at the political extremes of motivated reasoning – of believing what they find comfortable. Such centrists also tend to treat political extremism as the product of the irrational belief polarization, arising from living in like-minded groups. But, I argue, these arguments are too quick. First, we can’t dismiss a group as irrational merely be-cause they are likeminded. The existence of like-minded group can be explained in terms of irrational belief polarization, but it can also be explained by rational convergence on the truth. Second, belief polarization is not always irrational, such as when its emotional effects are used to repair impaired self-confidence. Third, political centrists are also subject to similar debunking argument. When we accept a polarization account, we get to feel the comfort of being “above it all”. Political centrists are just as plausibly subject to the irrational effects of living in like-minded groups. Belief polarization isn’t just for extremists. (shrink)

Với khối lượng kiến thức khoa học chuyên sâu gia tăng và thông tin đại chúng phổ biến về vấn đề biến đổi khí hậu, nhận thức về tình trạng nguy ngập của sức khỏe hệ sinh thái toàn cầu đã trở nên đầy đủ hơn rất nhiều.

Thời trang nhanh vốn được biết đến là ngành công nghiệp tỷ đô với những cuộc chạy đua giữa các thương hiệu để cho ra mắt những thiết kế mới liên tục, đi cùng với đó là thời gian từ khâu sản xuất tới khi bị vứt bỏ ngày càng bị cắt ngắn để tối đa hóa lợi nhuận. Đây là một ví dụ rất điển hình của văn hóa thâm hụt sinh thái trong giới kinh doanh [1]. Cũng vì (...) lý do này, ngành công nghiệp thời trang đã bị chỉ trích vì tạo ra nhiều ảnh hưởng tiêu cực đến môi trường, như thải ra 10% tổng lượng khí thải carbon, là ngành công nghiệp xả nước thải lớn thứ 2 trên thế giới, và chỉ riêng việc giặt các loại vải dệt tổng hợp như polyester đã thải ra 35% tổng số hạt vi nhựa trong đại dương [2]. (shrink)