Encompass d , / ^ D ' / E
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ 33
The PURPOSE of Encompass Maga- zine is to renew an ethical dialogue among all disciplines of the Duke community. We hope to show that eth- ics isn’t just for philosophers, priests, or obnoxious goody two-shoes.
1 A pot that can pro-‐ ĚƵĐĞ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ŬŝůŽŐƌĂŵƐ of any food a day
2 A necklace that allows you to touch books and instantly absorb knowledge from them without reading
3 An immortal dog that poops ŽƵƚ ŽŶĞ ŐŽůĚ ĐŽŝŶ ĞǀĞƌǇ ƟŵĞ ŝƚ goes to the bathroom
4 ďĞůů ƚŚĂƚ ǁŚĞŶ ƌĂŶŐ ĮǆĞƐ ĂŶǇ These Seven ŽŶĞ ŽďũĞĐƚ Ăƚ Ă ƟŵĞ͕ ĞǆĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ůŝǀŝŶŐ within a minute Magical Items 5 A cthings, hocolate bar, with twelve pieces, that makes anyone who eats a single Would You ƉŝĞĐĞ ŝŶǀŝŶĐŝďůĞ ĂŶĚ ǇŽƵƚŚĨƵů ƵŶƟů ϭϲϬ 6 Ŷ ƵŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ďŽƩůĞ ŽĨ ƉĞƌĨƵŵĞ ƚŚĂƚ ǁŝůů Choose? The van. ŵĂŬĞ ǇŽƵ ǁŝůĚůǇ ĂƩƌĂĐƟǀĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽƉƉŽƐŝƚĞ sex, which cannot be used on anyone you love
7 A no-‐fuel-‐required, maintenance-‐free, eight-‐ person van that can take you anywhere on the planet within one second The pot. ϭ ŬŐ ĨŽƌ ŵĞ͕ ϵϵϵ ŬŐ͛Ɛ for the hungry people and ani-‐ mals around me. I’ll probably spend more on food if I don’t have this magical pot anyways. People will love me when I have a pot that can make aph-‐ rodisiacs. Who needs books when you have food to share? I’ll get my knowledge from people who eat with me. If you could have this van, then you wouldn’t need to work and could just steal from outdoor ŵĂƌŬĞƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƐƚƵī ĨŽƌ Ă ůŝǀŝŶŐ͘ /͛ŵ lazy, and I love to travel....sooo... Yeah, I’m also unethical.
I love to travel and want to go to ĞǀĞƌǇ ĐŽŶƟŶĞŶƚ͘ ůƐŽ͕ gas is expensive and I only have 8 friends.
The necklace. Then I wouldn’t have
to stay up all night at Perkins! The van. I've always wanted a
magic carpet, and this seems like the updated version. A chocolate bar. You've bought
yourself and your loved ones the ƟŵĞ ƚŽ ůŝǀĞ ůŝĨĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĨƵůůĞƐƚ Ͳ in whatever capacity that is. zŽƵ ŚĂǀĞ Ăůů ƚŚĞ ƟŵĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ world to read, travel, and seduce!
This is where we begin... 2 encompass
of Contents Letter from Editors
A Case For reddit
the potential of mass social networking & sharing
Public and Private Lives collapsing our multiple identities
Activism Anonymous the strengths and weaknesses of namelessness
04 06 09 10
Destroying Your Enemies
Girls in Math
Shirt Off Your Back: Stuff We Don’t Want
Confessions of a Resident Advisor
The Use of Playing Video Games
a tale of respect for and coexistence with our enemies
addressing gender disparity in the study of mathematics
unwanted shirts, but not uncontroversial aid
the voice of that upperclassman down the hall
waste of time or mental invigoration?
The Bloom on the Cheek of Youth reconsidering “pleasure,” etymologically
Capturing Calamity thinking about our photographic subjects
How Crazie is Too Crazy? the ethical limits of fandom
Sex, Robots, & Ethics intimacy with more than just a dummy
22 24 26 28
Encompass ethics magazine
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Anya Kuznetsova, Mathematics ‘12 firstname.lastname@example.org
Eddie Wu, Philosophy ‘12
EDITORS AND DESIGNERS
Sophia Cao, Philosophy ‘12 Anupama Dathan, Public Policy ‘11 Jacob Golan, Trinity ‘14 Sarah Gordon, Trinity ‘13 Sarah Kim, Public Policy ‘11 Manoj Maddali, BME ‘13 Michael McCreary, Philosophy ‘12 Leonard Ng’eno, Economics ‘13 Katy Wood, Neuroscience ‘12
t is sometimes said that every era in history poses its own unique ethical chal- lenges. As citizens of the 21st century, we confront new dilemmas every day in a world increasingly connected and enhanced by technology. This issue of En- compass Ethics Magazine—entitled ethics: technically speaking—examines how technology permeates our modern lives, introducing new opportunities as well as new concerns. The internet is an empowering medium with the potential to rally individuals, forge online communities, and even introduce unimaginable chaos (p. 6). It can give us new identities as nameless participants of sensitive discussions (p. 10) or can expose our existing identities with uncanny, and perhaps undesirable, precision (p. 9).
Encompass Magazine is a student-‐run project sponsored by the <ĞŶĂŶ /ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚŝĐƐ at Duke University. Views and opinions expressed in this magazine represent the individual au-‐ ƚŚŽƌƐ ĂůŽŶĞ ĂŶĚ ŶŽƚ ƚŚĞ /ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ ĂƐ Ă ǁŚŽůĞ͘
nc e e
a sm as
g a z i n en c o m pas sm
o nc e
ine gaz ma a ss
n ag azi gazi nasemaga m s a p m o c n e s e e n s nc zine encompa agazi pa om ssm ssm m o pa pa c ss en m e ag in az az in ag m en
enco m passm a ine g a z gaz i n e ma en a ss co momp ncepnacssompassmagaz passmagazeinee ine ma ncom en c in g z ine az ga az ine ma e ss n co pa m p
in az ag
e n co m p
g a z i n en c o m pas sm
o nc e
m passma passma g a z com i n e en en ine co magaz a s m psamsp ssagazine encom e encom m as agazin pa s p a sm ga m zin co e
ag azi mp noe comp inee z a g assmaga a ncen m en s s pa zine m o e co c n n en e i m n z i c a z pa g a a s m sm s s a ga pa zi n m co
a sm as
Apart from the internet, other forms of technology are helping us do good around the world, but not without posing serious ethical challenges in the process. Although we often consider video games frivolous, some are imagining ways to harness their productive power as well (p. 20). While the digital age allows us to capture every aspect of our lives on camera, greater accessibility to photography may lead to greater concerns of abuse and exploitation of those in front of the lens (p. 24). With unprecedented power of production we can immediately satisfy fans’ desires for championship gear, but where does the merchandise of the losing teams go (p. 16)? Even our sexual lives are thrown into question by technology, as we grapple with the psychological and moral consequences of having sex with human-like robots (p. 28). We also engage in conversations beyond the scope of technology and address ca- nonical issues affecting our present experiences. We think about language and the meaning of fundamental words such as “pleasure” (p. 22). We question the ethical limits of spectatorship and the Cameron Crazies (p. 26), and we ask if even our great- est enemies deserve respect (p. 12). In all of these matters affecting our lives as moral beings, we aim to present an un- biased view. Our contributors are neither zealous luddites nor ardent technophiles, but instead constitute a range of perspectives with the common aim of prompting an open discussion. It remains up to you to make a conversation happen from the ethical themes developed here, and we hope that you will take up the challenge, whether as an embodied human being or as a virtual web identity.
contributions, or interested in joining the Encompass team?
CONTACT US www.dukeethics.org/encompass email@example.com 4 encompass
Enjoy, engage, and encompass ethics! Anya Kuznetsova and Eddie Wu
y, o good to ee makes hone b â&#x20AC;&#x153;We ought to d a r o , ns ru e as a hors hout others as simply fter season wit a n so a se s e p gra or a vine bears orneâ&#x20AC;? grapes it has b e th f o ng ki in th
the Easte o t n i a r T t Ghos heroux by Paul T iversity Duke Un
ENCOMPASS MAGAZINE BULLETIN BOARD
riter, Paul The w l e v a tr Esteemed traces his route in ed sh re Theroux, way Bazaar, publi elv il Great Ra decades ago. Tra y e b e r over th e and Asia W KDQG p o r u E s s ing acro X[ ZLWQHVVHV Ă&#x20AC;UV nd globalizaa UR WUDLQ 7KH of modernization loped world. e the effects muc h of the undev ted alongside n s e s s o e r r tion ac uffering p ows the reader to s n a m u h ity all Intense of human uly worth it. ty u a e b tr the mankind is decide if
â&#x20AC;&#x153;GOOD Projects â&#x20AC;?
Ä?Ć&#x152;Ä&#x201A;ĹśÄ?Ĺ&#x161; Ĺ˝Ä¨ Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E; ĹľÄ&#x17E;Ä&#x161;Ĺ?Ä&#x201A; Ć&#x2030;ĹŻÄ&#x201A; Ć&#x17E;Ĺ˝ 'KK WĆ&#x152;Ĺ˝ĹŠÄ&#x17E;Ä?Ć&#x161;Ć? Ä&#x201A;Ĺ?Ĺľ Ć&#x161;Ĺ˝ Ä?Ĺ˝ Ć&#x152;Ĺľ 'KK Í&#x2022; ĹľÄ?Ĺ?ĹśÄ&#x17E; Ć&#x2030;Ć&#x152;Ĺ˝ÄŽĆ&#x161;Í˛ seeking Â business Â strategie s Â w agendas Â to Â promote Â goo ith Â social Â d Â Ä?ĆľĆ?Ĺ?ĹśÄ&#x17E;Ć?Ć?Ä&#x17E;Ć? Ä&#x201A;ĹśÄ&#x161; Ä?Ĺ˝ĹľĹľĆľĹś for Â both Â Ĺ?Ć&#x;Ä&#x17E;Ć?Í&#x2DC; dĹ˝ Ä&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Í&#x2022; 'KK WĆ&#x152;Ĺ˝ĹŠÄ&#x17E;Ä?Ć&#x161;Ć? Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ç&#x20AC;Ä&#x17E; Ç Ĺ˝Ć&#x152; ĹŹÄ&#x17E;Ä&#x161; Ç Ĺ?Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161; Ä?Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ć&#x2030;Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x;Ĺ˝ĹśĆ? Ć?ĆľÄ?Ĺ&#x161; Ä&#x201A;Ć? WÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x2030; Ć?Ĺ? Ä&#x201A;ĹśÄ&#x161; / D Ć&#x161;Ĺ˝ Ä?Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E; ĹľĆľĹŻĆ&#x;ĹľÄ&#x17E;Ä&#x161;Ĺ?Ä&#x201A; Ć&#x2030;ĹŻÄ&#x201A;Ć&#x17E;Ĺ˝ m Ć&#x152;ĹľĆ? Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161; Ć&#x2030;Ć&#x152;Ĺ˝Ç&#x20AC;Ĺ˝ĹŹÄ&#x17E; o .c r e w o P n Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E;Ĺ&#x2021;Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ć&#x;Ĺ˝Ĺś Ä&#x201A;ĹśÄ&#x161; Ä?Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x201A;ĹŻÇ&#x2021;Ç&#x152;Ä&#x17E; Ä? a ic r e m A s Ĺ˝Ĺľ I ĹľĆľĹśĹ?Ć&#x161;Ç&#x2021; Ä&#x201A;Ä?Ć&#x;Ĺ˝Ĺś t a Wh Ć&#x161;Ĺ˝Ç Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x152;Ä&#x161; Ä&#x201A; Ä?Ä&#x17E;ĆŠÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x152; Ç Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;ĹŻÄ&#x161;Í&#x2DC; Created by Mitch Epstein, American Powerâ&#x20AC;? is a co â&#x20AC;&#x153;What Is photographs and otes llection of that urge us www.good-projects.com/ to evaluate our relatqu ionships to energy. By extension, the dis ssi on relates to other manifestations ofcupo we r: not only the material wealth and mi lita of our nation, but also its ry might intellectual prowess, communal stren gth, and creative potential. to
ge t r o f t ut! Do nâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; o s i h t ch e ck
Humility, not activism. Libert humiliation. Active, not y, not blogging. A not liberalism. Thinking, only for those merican Power is suited wh Ă DXQW LW :H DUH o donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want it and donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t alsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;but are ch D FRXQWU\ RI LQGLYLGXstand with tho arged to act as one. We s them. We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t e less fortunateâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;not for can Dreamâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;w bar the way of the Amerie power of Love interact with it. Only the can ove Power. And I lo rcome the love of ve America.
Daniel Bertalotto, designer and father
AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE
A biographical adaptation of preeminent New Zealand no velist, Janet Fra me, this movie depicts the ince ption of the aut hor in balance with her is olated upbring in g. Erroneously committe d to a mental a sy lu m for eight years due to he r extremely shy p e one gains insig rsonality, ht into the subje ct s o f Frameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s novels, as well as the historica l treatment of WKH PHQWDOO\ LOO (VVHQWLDOO\ WKH Ă&#x20AC;OP FDOOV LQWR question our se nse of reality, a nd how honestly we interact w ith the world a nd ourselves. Â 5 Ć?Ć&#x2030;Ć&#x152;Ĺ?ĹśĹ? ĎŽĎŹĎĎ Â Â Â 5
A CASE FOR REDDIT Every once in a while, as you are diligently writing notes in your psych lecture, do you ever look up and glance at the surrounding students’ laptops? If you do, then sometimes you’ll see PowerPoint notes, sometimes Word documents, but often, you’ll catch glimpse of some YouTube clip running or someone checking their Facebook. Lately though, a new site seems to be popping up on more and more Duke students’ laptops:
reddit ϲ encompass
his part-social networking, part-news aggregating site has been steadily gaining in- fluence over the past 5 years in both the virtual and real worlds. Like many social websites, the posters and commenters on reddit represent a diverse group of peo- ple whose interests vary widely. More of- ten than not, different communities within reddit seem to contradict one another, making us question the possibility of their coexistence. However, despite the ethical
quandaries that reddit presents, the com- munity as a whole can unite to support im- portant causes and change people’s lives in the physical world. To understand how a social-network- ing site can accomplish this, you must first understand the website itself. Self- proclaimed as the source of what’s new and popular on the web, reddit is prob- ably where that one friend of yours keeps finding funny pictures that end up on your Facebook wall. The website itself is so
y< ͗ DĂƉ ŽĨ KŶůŝŶĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ͕ ^ƉƌŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ^ƵŵŵĞƌ ϮϬϭϬ ;ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚͿ
by Benjamin Trautman Biomedical Engineering ‘13
much more than lolcats and other memes. Within reddit, there are various “subred- dits” that function as standalone commu- nities for people of similar interests to ask questions, post answers, and, of course, post new links about their passions. These subreddits range from the more mundane Pics, Politics, and Funny to the more ex- treme Anarchism, Jailbait, or Australia. There are subreddits for any conceivable interest: whalebait for whale enthusiasts, whatisthisbug for confused gardeners, even a Duke subreddit (where I found the
as grating cheese with an encyclopedia. This obsession with karma seems to exist in many different forms outside of reddit: how many times have you felt a little boost in confidence when someone *likes* your status on Facebook? As a reader and sub- mitter, one feels like both a Caesar and a gladiator in ancient Rome. With one click I decide whether or not someone’s com- ment (in my mind) is deserving of praise with upvotes or should be sunk into obliv- ion with downvotes. At the same time, my own little comments are subject to the
wishes and farewells from around the world, giving Lucidending a virtual world tour of epic proportions (nearly 10,000 individual comments were posted on this thread) and documenting this with Google Maps. He said he once saw the sun rise and set in the same day in Key West and redditors set up links to live feeds of the horizon. The thread’s popularity jumped from reddit to the real world as USA To- day picked up on the story. Thousands posted outpourings of emotion and drew motivation from Lucidending’s words.
dŚĞ ǀŝĞǁƐ ĞǆƉƌĞƐƐĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĂƌƟĐůĞ ĂƌĞ ƚŚŽƐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂƵƚŚŽƌ ĂŶĚ ŚĂǀĞ ŶŽƚ ďĞĞŶ ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚĞ ŬŝŶĚ ƐƚĂī ŽĨ ƌĞĚĚŝƚ
...Somehow in the midst of the memes and the politics, the proper and the deviant, the pictures and the videos, the upvotes and the downvotes, reddit and redditors help create real change in the world. invitation to write this article). And, much like our own school’s club system, if a sub- reddit doesn’t exist you can make your own and populate it with threads about, say, hedgehogs...although I’m sure it’s al- ready been taken. What drives reddit (and hooks so many new readers) is its karma system. When- ever a link is submitted to one of reddit’s subreddits, viewers may choose to “up- vote” or “downvote” the submission. New and interesting links tend to get more upvotes than downvotes and quickly rise to the top of the frontpage where readers can see what is “new and popular” on the internet that day and decide for them- selves if it’s worthy of their own upvote. Below the links are comment threads con- taining viewers’ opinions. The comments are also subject to the karma rule: insight- ful discussion which adds to the conversa- tion gets upvotes and moves to the top of the comment thread. The more upvotes a user gains, the higher his or her “karma” score reaches and the more respect the user will command from the community. It’s easy to see how many commenters get “hooked” on karma and how the karma system can be gamed in certain ways. Take for example the novelty account. Novelty accounts take advantage of the fact that sometimes, the most funny or witty comments get the most upvotes in- stead of the comments that contribute most to the conversation. They usually have a theme to their comments: most of- ten it is reflected by their username. red- dit recently voted its “Best of 2010 Nov- elty Account” to be Sure_Ill_Draw_That, a user who often makes hilarious draw- ings depicting the comment above his own. Another novelty account that com- mands over 40,000 karma is owned by NonsensicalAnalogy, a user who often tells anecdotes that make as much sense
same rules. The internet decides if they live or die. Gaining karma is a rush, each downvote feels like a failure, and each comment becomes a gamble. Independent of the fervor to submit links that make the front page, or to have the most interesting and entertaining comments, the reddit community occa- sionally enacts real change in the non-vir- tual world. Random acts of philanthropy frequently occur on reddit, and making something go viral in less than a day is just a side effect. Take Ted Williams, for example. Over winter break you might have heard of “The Man with the Golden Voice,” a video about a former radio an- nouncer with a perfect baritone for the microphone who had since become homeless. The video itself was made by a reporter, but once it was posted on reddit, it quickly spread across the internet and brought in much media attention. Reddit didn’t stop there. A group of redditors was able to help provide Ted with a phone, his own website, job opportunities, and over $1000 in donations in less than a day. Redditors can also band together to support a cause. One of the fastest grow- ing subreddits, /r/IAMA, was recently home to one of these examples. In /r/ IAMA, redditors can submit threads for other redditors to “Ask Me Anything.” This functions as a sort of an interview. A person under the name “Lucidending” submitted a thread stating that he had only 51 hours left to live and was going to end his own life via Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. Claiming to be suffering from terminal cancer, Lucidending answered redditors’ questions and caused many to rethink their lives, question the ethics of assisted suicide and how they would want their lives to end. Although this person was bedridden, redditors were able to provide a last hurrah by sending in well
Some people believe that the AMA was a fake (there’s not a good way of verifying the authenticity). However, many people don’t care if this story was real or not; it was still able to speak to people from all walks of life. While so many redditors were support- ive of Lucidending ending his life, there is an entire subreddit that devotes itself to preventing suicide. /r/SuicideWatch is a community of dedicated people who offer a place for people with suicidal thoughts to talk and feel less alone. The fact that the members of the community don’t know who they’re talking to doesn’t mat- ter. Members are not required to show any proof of qualification either, presenting an ethical dilemma: as a disturbed person in need of help, you don’t know if you’re speaking to a psychologist or some bored pre-teen. Can someone who isn’t quali- fied to drive, much less counsel a sui- cidal person, really help? It’s hard to tell.
All these people come together to submit and vote on topics and every so often something amazing happens: the majority happens to like the same thing. ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ 7
SuicideWatch strives to provide help as much as it can, no matter who is respond- ing to these cries for help. Moderators keep track of posts and limit pro-suicide comments and discussion of methods. As the sidebar states, SuicideWatch is a “place of support” and also includes links to International Hotline Numbers and Sui- cideWatch resources. Reddit doesn’t focus just on heartbreak and sadness. Prior to the winter holiday season, reddit hosted what might be the world’s largest “secret santa” style gift ex- change. Posted at the top of the front page by the moderators was a link leading to a simple website where you could enter your name, preferred gift, and address. Later, you’d be matched up randomly with someone else in the world and prompted to gift shop for them. The exchange was a huge success, netting almost $500,000 in gifts strangers gave to each other across the world with 92 separate countries in- volved. Amazingly, these people who have absolutely no connection to one an- other other than the website itself spent an average of nearly $40 on gifts and shipping for their match. Redditors can get political in their philanthropy too. Some readers might re- member Glenn Beck’s “Rally to Restore America”, held on the mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. More might remember Jon Stew- art and Stephen Colbert’s counter rally, the “Rally to Restore Sanity,” which drew a crowd more than twice the size of Beck’s. One huge factor in this was reddit’s sup- port in Colbert’s “Rally to Restore Fear” portion of the counter-rally. The idea for Colbert (a satirist known for his mockery of characters like Beck) to hold a counter- rally to Beck supposedly came to a reddi- tor in a dream. This idea was widely ac- cepted by the liberal-leaning community as something that must happen. In fact, Stewart had already been mulling the event, but the support of the reddit com- munity helped it become a reality. Even before redditors knew the rally was going to happen (or that it was even planned), some redditors found out that Colbert had a pet charity, DonorsChoose.org. In an ef- fort to prove to Colbert that this idea was serious and not some crazy idea from the internet, redditors began donating. In less than 8 hours they had broken Hillary Clin- ton’s record (and DonorChoose’s serv- ers!) for the organization, raising roughly $30,000. They didn’t stop there, however. Colbert struck a deal with redditors—if they donated more than $500,000 by the time the rally came around, he’d let the community interview him (with the best
questions chosen by karma, of course). reddit came through, with a grand total of more than $600,000 in less than 2 months. Reddit represents a very diverse group of people. If you were to type “red- dit” into Google, the top two links within reddit until very recently were /r/NSFW and /r/jailbait, the former being a con- glomeration of pornographic links from around the internet and the latter being a collection of links of underage girls in sexually provocative, albeit still clothed poses (interestingly, the subreddit com- munity claims it is vehemently against child pornography). An even more con- troversial subreddit is /r/gonewild, where the posters (male and female) submit pictures of themselves sans-clothes for compliments and a self esteem boost. All sorts of subreddit are being created ev- ery day like /r/r4r: a way for redditors to meet other redditors in their area for sexual encounters. Is it odd that some of these subreddits have nearly as much (and sometimes more) subscribers than the more “normal“ones? Not really. Is it possible that many of the people popu- lating mainstream threads like /r/science and /r/worldnews are the same people who post in /r/NSFW, /r/jailbait, and /r/ gonewild? It’s simply something not many redditors probably take the time to think about. The internet is full of people of all kinds. People like you and me inhabit reddit, providing discussion and upvotes for their interests. Behind the anonymity that reddit provides, people can indulge in whatever strikes their curiosity without worrying about social norms and preju- dices.
It’s hard to make sense of how it hap- pens, but somehow in the midst of the memes and the politics, the proper and the deviant, the pictures and the videos, the upvotes and the downvotes, reddit and redditors help create real change in the world. Somehow among the ethical quandaries: “Do I trust the person who claims to be a nuclear engineer and ex- plains the likelihood of Japan’s nuclear reactor melting down, and yet posts links to NSFW?” “Do I share my insecurities on /r/depression with someone who might just be a 12-year-old?”, the viewer has to navigate the melting pot of anonymity. All these people come together submitting and voting on topics and every so often something amazing happens: the major- ity happens to like the same thing. This rarely makes the jump from virtual to real world, but reddit and the people that in- habit its threads have proven that some causes are worth acting on, not just talk- ing about. Next time you’re bored in class and have reddit up alongside Facebook on your laptop, remember your upvotes and downvotes actually have meaning beyond karma. Social networks and the hivemind can change real people’s lives directly and indirectly—more redditors join daily and the influence the site holds grows. So take a stance on some obscure topic. Make a subreddit. Submit links, create content, comment but don’t get hooked on the karma chase. Who knows, maybe someday you’ll start your own reddit-born viral phenomenon. Reddit has shown that even these virtual fads can translate to the physical realm. Wielding your upvotes, you can change the world.
karmanaut is one of the most well known reddi- tors. There has even been a rumor that a collective of some of reddit’s most active users were hiding behind the name in some sort of a social media experiment, posting their best comments using this account! We choose to believe karmanaut himself, who says that he is a student at Duke Law School. We asked him to answer some questions for us!
Why do you participate? Well, I always have something to say. I think a lot of people on reddit just read the stories and sometimes the comments, and then move on. But when I read something, a thought almost always pops into my mind, whether it be a joke or a question or something like that. So, I just post it without thinking. That’s why I am considered very prolific.
What does reddit mean to you? It really tells me a lot about what people think and how people truly are. Gener- ally, I find that in person people are disingenuous and really afraid to let their true feelings be known because of how people will judge them. On reddit, people are willing to spill their deepest darkest secrets to a group of strang- ers. People’s political opinions, thoughts on society, etc. are all uncensored and analyzed for what they really are. I love it.
Public and Private Lives
eing a celebrity, politician, or fa- mous athlete often comes with the consequence of always being followed around by a crowd of reporters, photographers, and obsessive fans or supporters (or opponents for that matter). Every aspect, every minute of these figures’ lives are seen, documented, and published for a mass audience. When a politician makes a regrettable gaffe, a star singer dangles his child off a balco- ny, or the hottest new Hollywood couple takes their newborn out for a day of shop- ping, we hear about it. We hear about it on TV, read about it in newspapers and magazines, see it on the blogosphere and on Twitter feeds, and talk about it with our friends—or overhear others talking about it at the very least. In effect, the private lives of celebrity figures are made public to the world. It is almost as if the paparazzi provides us with a constant window into the lives of others. The puzzle of publicizing private lives, however, is that the general public often seems to hold the private lives they ob- serve to a higher moral standard than they hold themselves. If a politician has an affair, a celebrity puts nude photos online, or a famous athlete is caught doing drugs, the media and the public judge them harshly, perhaps even more harshly than they would judge themselves in the same situations. The disjuncture here seems to be between public and private lives, where public life simply represents an instance of someone’s private life being exposed to a wider audience. We idealize public life and expect it to appear inno- cent and pure, even when we know it isn’t. We have all heard that we should hide our Facebook profiles from potential em- ployers so that they can’t see us drink-
ing at parties or looking unprofessional in some other way. We heard the story of Karen Owens’s PowerPoint tainting her reputation and affecting the job pros- pects of herself and those included in the project. But why are these things so outra- geous, so unacceptable? Are employers so naïve as to think that Duke and other university students are not drinking and hooking up? The truth is they aren’t; but even though they know what’s going on, they don’t want to hear about it. While past societies have defined what subject matter is appropriate for the pub- lic versus private domains, the idealiza- tion of public life and the division be- tween public and private matters could be disintegrating with the explosion of social media. When your great aunt has the same access to your Facebook pro- file as your best friend; when you are so- cially required to upload pictures of last night’s party; when every raw thought you have is published on Twitter; when you take a stance in the blogosphere for all to see; it becomes harder and harder to maintain the distinction between public and private. The kind of private interac- tions we used to have over the phone or face-to-face are increasingly happening on the public stage of social media. The long-term implications of this could be a greater public acceptance of what we used to think of as more intimate private affairs. When we consider if there is any- thing on our Facebook profile today that we might be horrified of 20 years from now, we should not only think of the con- tent that is currently on our Facebook, but also how societal perceptions will change in the next 20 years—the public eye may- be considerably less critical than it is now.
Spokeo.com is a website that amasses per- sonal information from public sources and allows people to search for others and ob- tain their phone number, address, and so on. Is it a website with great potential for abuse, just another part of our increasingly publicized lives, or both?
Have you ever heard of Spokeo.com?
Yes: 52.2% No: 47.8%
Yes: 82.6% No: 17.4%
Are you concerned about the implications of this website?
ĨĂĐĞďŽŽŬ ƐƚĂƚƐ͗ ÝçÙò ù
95.7% of respondents use Facebook 50.0% ARE FACEBOOK FRIENDS WITH AT LEAST ONE PARENT 54.3% use friend lists to customize privacy settings for photos, wall posts, etc.
68.9% UNTAG THEMSELVES FROM SOME PHOTOS... ...yet 69.6% say that they have nothing to hide from potential employers
“Is there anything on your Facebook that you will cringe at twenty years from now?”
...The general public often seems to hold the private lives they observe to a higher moral standard than they hold themselves.
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ ϵ
M S I V I T S C U A O M Y N O AN
“The genuine journalist, the man of experience and weight, has always an objection to signing his name to an article. He knows that to sign his name is to lessen the weight of his opinion. The man who signs his article ceases to be the voice of truth and judgment and becomes an individual author.”1
A By Ryann Child Environmental Science and Policy ‘12
ϭϬ ϭϬ encompass
Special thanks to Chris Perry and Sunhay You for their insightful contributions to this article.
nonymous forums offer a medium for dialogue, especially on issues that people, as a result of the circumstances or their environment, are not comfortable or not ready to discuss openly. Anonymous voices are the words of single writers, but often reflect collective concerns of many others that choose to remain name- less and faceless on the subject. Yet, when anonymous forums create an outlet for individuals to speak up on issues that re- quire activism, is anonymity holding back progress? Does the veil of namelessness merely offer an excuse to avoid a firm and visible stance for change? On one hand, anonymous forums of- ten lead to an anarchical dialogue where speakers, unaccountable for their words, can say what they wish without regard for the feelings of others. Think back to the days of Juicy Campus, and more cur- rently, CollegeACB, where students from universities nationwide gossiped on top- ics ranging from the easiest classes to the hottest female members of the freshmen class. “With anonymity comes consider- able power,” stated Bronwyn Lewis in an article about Juicy Campus, written for the Kenan Institute for Ethics, “Nameless contributors could suddenly ruin reputa- tions, avenge petty grudges, and reveal prejudices they would never espouse publicly…The site gave its users the abil- ity to play God with their peers’ emotions and social standing, and play they did.”2 The anonymity of College ACB, or by its full name, College Anonymous Confes- sion Board, creates a forum for the judg- ments of college students “free from so-
cial constraints,” according to the site’s mission statement. However, like its juicy predecessors, the venting and ranting of anonymous users accelerated to a point where the site’s owners have recently de- cided to shut it down and re-launch the space to “Push the culture of the site in a more positive and productive direction.” On the other hand, however, anony- mous forums at Duke are becoming criti- cal tools to foster individual empower- ment and community cohesion. A recent anonymous post on Develle Dish, a stu- dent-run blog on women’s issues, began with the message, “I am submitting to De- velle Dish because I’ve read the respons- es on this site, and it seems like the com- mentators really care and are thoughtful.” Users seek out the anonymous forum not to target other students, but rather to con- nect with their peers who share similar sentiments. I recently spoke with Chris Perry, edi- tor of Our Lives, a blog sponsored by Blue Devils United, the undergraduate LGBTQ and ally student group. The blog launched in December 2008 as an entirely anony- mous forum where authors wrote under pseudonyms. It was created as a medium for LGBTQ students and allies to share their experiences in a way that was real and unedited: anonymity created open- ness. However, the blog quickly turned negative and unproductive as personal posts morphed into personal attacks. In such a small community, attempts to re- main anonymous were sometimes futile because readers could guess whom the pseudonyms represented. In a Letter from the Editor posted to the blog last Sep- tember, Perry refers to the past site as “bluedevilsarguing.com.” In November 2009, the blog was re- launched into its current form, which fea- tures a staff of columnists who (with a few exceptions to be discussed) write from their real names, often accompanied by their photos. In an interview, Perry stated, “the problem with anonymous columns is that they had the connotation that we were afraid to be out, or that Duke was a dan- gerous place.” The new version of Our Lives retained its anonymous roots through an anony- mous post option. Blog users who wish to submit an entry to the blog to make a statement, confession, find support, or simply seek advice, can do so by means of a Survey Monkey link. Since Novem- ber 2009, the blog has received 247 total anonymous submissions, with an average of 4-7 posts sent in each week. According to Perry, only about three weeks in total have passed entirely post-less. Even the latest iteration of anonymous
content on Our Lives has not been without tion. I spoke with Sunhay You, the blog’s its complications, however. Perry recalls editor, about her thoughts on the power an anonymous entry indicating a desire of anonymity in establishing a community to commit suicide. Without information for the female student body. She said of on who or where the post came from, ano- anonymous contributors: “their posts pro- nymity paralyzed Perry and BDU from voke us to think about what they are afraid seeking direct help for the submitter, and of and why.” they could only of- Anonymity also “In some cases anonymity fer online support offers a middle in hopes that the enables students to speak out ground where a writ- individual would er’s identity—say as in a way that debilitates disseek help for him member cussion, especially in a situa- aof feminist, or her self. a sorority, DSG tion where a contributors’ title representative etc— As the blog is would have strengthened the will not overshadow open content to the online world, BDU message and exhibited ‘the de- her message. Un- also cannot verify if gree to which she is fearless!” fortunately, in some a post came from a cases anonymity student on campus or, as Perry puts it, “a enables students to speak out in a way 50-year-old guy in Minnesota.” Moreover, that debilitates discussion, especially in a the anonymous forum lacks a mechanism situation where a contributors’ title would for verifying if a submission is genuine. have strengthened the message and ex- In Spring 2010, an anonymous post con- hibited “the degree to which she is fear- tained a confession that an HIV positive less.” Is anonymity, then, hindering the male may have put his sexual partners at campus dialogue on gender relations and risk for infection. After sending a shock female empowerment? You doesn’t think through the LGBTQ community, the origi- so: “The reason why the anonymous posts nal submitter sent in an apology the fol- we’ve featured have been powerful is lowing week stating that the post was fab- because people understand the amount ricated and was intended to serve merely of courage these writers needed to even as a cultural commentary. write something down.” Recently, the blog added regular con- In the past, anonymous blogs visited tributions from two trans-identified col- by Duke students incited hurtful attacks umnists. Although Our Lives has a policy against other students. Juicy Campus and of displaying the identities of regular CollegeACB represent just two examples columnists, five contributors continue to of anonymous forums that crossed the use pseudonyms to avoid complications ethical boundary between a right to free- with their sexual identities back home. dom of expression and a moral obliga- Both trans-identified columnists chose to tion not to harm or offend others. Further, remain anonymous—a coincidence that speaking out without a name may appear Perry feels is reflective of the level of ac- to be an inefficient method for establish- ceptance on campus for the recently de- ing a campus presence, as Brooke King- veloping transgender community. sland articulated in a submission to De- In spite of the controversies provoked velle Dish, “the value of opening lines of by anonymous posts, Perry defends the communication and sharing perspectives decision to reserve roughly half of the cannot be underestimated, especially in blog for anonymous content, as anonymi- forming a course of action.” However, it ty remains, “the only way to get the voices remains up for debate and largely depen- of closeted people on campus or even the dent on specific circumstances whether honest opinions of people who are out.” a post written anonymously would have I now turn to a different group seek- added more ‘power to its punch’ with a ing community on campus: Develle Dish, name and a face behind its words. It is whose launch created an anonymous clear that anonymous expression is pro- forum to empower Duke women. Ac- voking a more accepting and tolerant cording to its mission, the blog “aims to dialogue at Duke, one unsigned post at connect women from all over campus, a time. An open, reassuring atmosphere whether they identify as feminists or not, where individuals feel safe to speak is be- to discuss women’s issues and encourage ginning to break the first barrier to iden- action within the Duke community.” With tifiable action. the controversy surrounding campus 1 “Power in Anonymity” from the London women that plagued last semester (recall: Academy. Published in The New York Times. Ϯϵ KĐƚŽďĞƌ Karen Owen, Frat Mail, and the petition ϭϵϬϲ against Greek Progressives), Develle Dish 2 >ĞǁŝƐ͕ ƌŽŶǁǇŶ͘ ͞dŚĞ ŶŽŶǇŵŝƚǇ dĞƐƚ͘͟ The became a forum to share experience, <ĞŶĂŶ /ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚŝĐƐ͘ ĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ ϯ DĂƌĐŚ ϮϬϭϭ ĨƌŽŵ promote discussion, and spread informa- ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬŬĞŶĂŶ͘ĞƚŚŝĐƐ͘ĚƵŬĞ͘ĞĚƵͬƚŚĞͲĂŶŽŶǇŵŝƚǇͲƚĞƐƚͬ
ϭϬϭϭ ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ ϭϭ
DESTROYING OUR ENEMIES by Jacob Golan dƌŝŶŝƚǇ ͚ϭϰ
Inspired by wolf Totem, by Jiang Rong
n the windswept wastelands of the Mongolian steppe, war exists as a source of balance. For ten thousand years the Mongolian no- mad has inhabited this wilderness, living off herds of horse and sheep. Yet, for all this simplicity, the Mongol has made him- self the greatest warrior of the East. The nomad’s strength is bound to the Mongol wolf, which has challenged the existence of man on the Mongolian steppe for mil- lennia. From these toils, the Mongols of central Asia owe their power, their iden- tity, and their destiny to their enemy, the wolf... The Mongolian wolf is the most impos- ing, most threatening and most enduring in the world – the largest and most intelli- gent of all canine species. The Mongolian nomad would not survive if not for centu- ries of careful observation and emulation of the wolves’ survival techniques. From the wolves, Mongols learned to live as a group, supporting their sick and young. From the wolves, Mongols learned to store their meat in piles of snow for re- frigeration. And from the wolves, Mongols learned to wait for their prey to fill their bladder, slowing the animal in order to make an easier catch. The nomads of the Mongolian steppe have gone so far as to venerate the wolf as the manifestation on their God, Tengger. When a Mongol dies, his body is left outside to be consumed by the wolves, releasing the soul to heaven. Nevertheless, the Mongol is the sworn enemy of every wolf. One is not a man un- til he has skinned his first wolf pelt. Con- versely, the wolf shamelessly preys on the nomad’s horses and sheep, and is even willing to kill a Mongol herdsman. The idea that the Mongol can both wor- ship and wage war against the wolves is perhaps the most primeval approach to dealing with one’s enemies. To the hu- man, who only sees conflict in terms of his own species, a battle between man and wolf seems a pointless cause – hardly something to be written in history. Yet at the origin of man’s conflicts, does one not dehumanize an enemy in the same way? In thinking of our enemies, it is rare to consider their lives, their families or their happiness. Instead, they are but forces
working against how we might envision the world. Undoubtedly, the justification and consequences for waging war with the wolves are of equal importance for man’s understanding of conflict pursued against his own species. Now imagine one were to raise a wolf cub as one’s own, in a sense, “taming” the enemy: essentially making the enemy more like oneself. One might call such a process “peace making” in the context of a global society. Like a lap-dog trained to live among humans, a similar “taming” process requires an enemy’s natural ways to be be supplanted by our own. Often, one cannot accept peace until the oppo- sition resembles oneself. Mongols in the past have attempted to tame wolf cubs, but the wolf ultimately dies. The Mon- gols dare not tamper with the workings of Tengger, reasoning that a wolf would rather die than lose its identity as a wild animal. The Mongol wolf reminds us that we define our enemies by their determi- nation to not assume our identity. Yet, we cannot presume that our way of life is any better than another. If cultural and politi- cal identities could all be simply “tamed,” war would serve little purpose. But our enemies do not want to be “tamed” as though it were the sensible thing to do, and so a struggle is certain. A true example of this was the en- croachment of Han Chinese farmers into Inner Mongolia (Mongol lands within the borders of China). They sought to civi- lize the grasslands by eradicating the wolves. The Han Chinese had no un- derstanding of the wolves’ importance to the terrain and made it their mission to exterminate all Inner Mongolian wolves. The threat of wolves was eliminated, but so, too, was the natural balance of the steppes. With- out the wolves the land became overused and infertile, and the Gobi desert today dominates the once rich ecosystem of the Mongolian steppe. Chinese or Mon- gol, the wolf was the enemy. However, destruction of the wolves was an ineffec- tive solution, as clearly nobody benefited from one-sided domination. Be it wolves or people, the Mongols illustrate how the destruction of our en- emies ultimately contributes to our own destruction. A Mongol reminds us how our identity is uniquely defined because of the differences in our world. The Mon- gol comes to define himself, and his ene- my, only because the perspective of a wolf cannot be the same as that of a human. If it were not for the wolves, there would be
no struggle to preserve a Mongol identity. Real- izing this, the Mongolian culture respects the exis- tence of its foe. However, if the Mongols were not to defend their herds from the wolves, they could not survive. On the surface, it boils down to the fact that either the wolf or the Mongol must be defeated in the struggle to survive. Nonetheless, one’s survival does not rest on another’s extinction. The Mongol shows that any struggle is meaningless if one does not understand the difference between war as a means of survival, rather than a pur- pose to exist. A Mongol does not pursue victory as the extermination of the wolves, but rather as coexistence alongside the wolf. Central to Mongolian culture, con- flict with the wolves can be justified, but their total elimination cannot. Nevertheless, the Mongol shows how in order to live amongst one’s enemies one must not become consumed by the jus- tice of one’s purpose. Because the Mon- gol is fighting against wolves, it would be strange to see a wolf defending its actions – especially when considering the grav- ity of war when it only involves humans. In such a case of man vs. wolf, there is no dogmatic prerogative fueling either side. The sole driving force is the will to survive. Thus in connection to human conflict, whatever the war cry, the Mon- gol exemplifies human- ity’s need to do what it must in order to remain alive. To a Mongol, this is justice! If the enemy strikes, one owes it to oneself and one’s soci- ety to strike back – simply as a means of existing. When a wolf attacks the herd, if one turns the other cheek, one loses one’s means of survival (or worse, the next at- tack may be against one’s family, or even oneself). However, the darkest aspect of war stems from the notion that the enemy must be demonized. The Mongol has real- ized exactly the opposite; in fact, Mongols view its enemy as being sent by God. The Mongol has learned to live side-by-side with its enemy only through the accep- tance of its presence, rather than its total destruction. Amidst perpetual warfare, a Mongol lives peacefully because he thanks his God for his enemy - acknowl- edging the inevitable conflict. He does not try to “tame” his enemies, but deals with them head-on in order to benefit from the situation. The Mongols show that it is not a matter of making peace with our enemies (or seeking their destruction), but rather
“Often, one cannot accept peace until the opposition resembles oneself.”
The Mongol shows that any STRUGGLE is meaningless if one does not understand the difference between war as a means of survival rather than a purpose to exist... making peace with the struggles we must endure to survive, in any situation. Ironically, it is the nomads’ pursuit to defeat their enemy that has come to de- fine them as a people. Yet, every Mongol knows that the utter destruction of the Mongol wolf will leave him with nothing. The Han Chinese desertification of Inner Mongolia has all but driven the wolves from the steppes, drawing nomadic Mon- golian life to a close within the borders of China forever. The Mongol of the past might have easily done the same, but self- preservation was more important. Wheth- er is it man vs. wolf or man vs. man, the Mongol shows we all hold claims to the Earth, but there is only so much to take. A Mongol has accepted that because of our differences we cannot always share – but the Mongol is content to struggle. To a Mongol, this is peace!
an h c s
p is lu
ȄǻǺ Ǻ Ȉ
Can ǺǰǻǸ ǻ
dŚĞ DŽŶŐŽůŝĂŶ ǁŽůĨ community is ďĞůŝĞǀĞĚ ƚŽ ďĞ ƚŚĞ ĐůŽƐĞƐƚ ƌĞůĂƟǀĞ ƚŽ modern day dogs. The subspecies is dis-‐ ƟŶŐƵŝƐŚĞĚ ďǇ Ă ƐƚƌŝƉ ŽĨ ďůĂĐŬ ĨƵƌ ƌƵŶŶŝŶŐ along its back, with the rest of its body covered in sand-‐colored fur. Unlike the gray wolf, the Mongolian wolf has short-‐ er legs and travels in packs of three. dŽĚĂǇ͕ ǁŽůĨ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ ĂĐƌŽƐƐ ƚŚĞ globe are threatened by human urban-‐ ŝǌĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ dŚĞ ĞůƵƐŝǀĞ ŶĂƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ǁŽůĨ ŵĂŬĞƐ ŝƚ ĚŝĸĐƵůƚ ƚŽ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ǁŽůĨ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͘ ,Žǁ-‐ ĞǀĞƌ͕ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ hŶŝƚĞĚ ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͕ ǁŽůǀĞƐ have been reduced to 3% of their origi-‐ nal habitat, and in Inner Mongolia, no ǁŽůĨ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ƐĞĞŶ ƐŝŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ϭϵϳϬ͛Ɛ͘ dŚĞ ǁŽůĨ ŝƐ ƐƉŝƌŝƚƵĂůůǇ ƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ DŽŶŐŽů ƉĞŽƉůĞ͘ 'ĞŶŐŚŝƐ <ŚĂŶ ĚĞ-‐ scribed how the Mongolian wolf is the ancestor of all Mongols. It has been sug-‐ gested that the vast area conquered by ƚŚĞ ,ƵŶƐ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ƌĞůĂƟǀĞůǇ ƐŵĂůů ĂƌŵǇ ǁĂƐ ĚƵĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ DŽŶŐŽů͛Ɛ ĞŵƵůĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ the wolf. ϭϯ
kharied via Flickr
Girls in Math ďǇ ^ĂƌĂŚ ^ĐŚŽƩ͕ WŚ ĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞ ŝŶ DĂƚŚĞŵĂƟĐƐ
Teen Talk Barbie so aptly stated in 1992, “math class is tough.” Unarguably this is an opinion shared by the majority of the population (and certainly Duke undergraduates), both male and female. Yet such feelings are often attributed strictly to females. Moreover, there is a long-standing dichotomy in which males are assumed to be endowed with a mathematical talent that women lack. Such societal EHOLHIV DUH ERXQG WR LQÀXHQFH D ZRPDQ¶V SHUFHSWLRQ of her own skills. Given such an environment, it’s no surprise that women are under-represented in mathematics and math-based sciences. According to the most recent statis- tics gathered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), about 44% of bachelor degrees in mathematics are granted to women. The proportion of such degrees earned by women peaked in 1987 at just over 48% and since 2001, it has been steadily declining. Unfortunate- ly, in its representation of women in math- ematics, Duke fares below the national average; only a third of all undergradu- ate math majors are women. Even more alarming, the National Science Founda- tion (NSF) records that only 30% of doc- toral mathematics degrees are conferred
upon women. Yet the NCES also found that at the high school level, girls are earning slightly higher grades in math than boys. This begs the question: why are women leaving the field at a higher rate than men? To put this into a broader context, it’s worthwhile to examine the statistics in related fields. According to the Confer- ence Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), the fields in which women appear to be least involved are Computer Sci- ence and Engineering. In the former, the percentage of bachelor degrees earned by females has been declining since 1984 to a current low of 18.6%. Although the percentage of female engineering majors has been steadily increasing since 1980, it presently sits at only 18.4%. On the other hand, female representation in Physical Science has been on a steady incline (to a current 40.9%) and women make up more than half of undergraduate majors in Bio- logical Science.
YOUNG GIRLS, WHEN THEY ARE MOST IMPRESSIONABLE, ARE CONTINUALLY CONFRONTED BY THE MESSAGE THAT WOMEN DON’T DO MATH.”
In a recent article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the authors claim that the under-representa- tion of women in math and science is not caused by gender discrimination. I don’t pretend to know the cause of this gen- der gap, nor do I know the solution. But I do believe there are some actions that can and should be taken. I am not here to argue for women to be given “special consideration.” On the contrary, women should be considered based on their skills rather than their gender. First, women need to be encouraged from the start. Young girls, when they are most impressionable, are continually con- fronted by the message that women don’t do math. Too many mothers are broad- casting their own perceived deficiencies in math. This only sends the message to daughters, whether spoken or simply tac- it, that it’s acceptable if you don’t succeed in math. Why is it that I have rarely heard fathers making a similar declaration? Mothers are not the only source of fe- male role models for young girls. It is incumbent upon female mathematicians to provide encouragement and support for girls interested in math. The Durham community has provided such a mentor- ing opportunity through the Women and Mathematics (WAM) Mentoring Program. By pairing 8th grade females with women in the community, students see first-hand what opportunities math affords when it comes to careers. More importantly, they see women excelling in these posi- tions traditionally dominated by men. I recently heard of the FEMMES program at Duke, which stands for “females excelling more at math, engineering and science.” This organization consists of female math, engineering and science undergraduate majors who volunteer their time to intro- duce local 4th through 6th grade girls to their field of study. Through a sum- mer camp and after school programs, FEMMES makes math and science fun and accessible to young girls. Because women are a minority in mathematics at the university level, their support for one another is crucial. By talking to female math majors from a number of colleges, I’ve learned that it is not unusual to be the only woman in a math class. Add to that the fact that most math professors are male, and the result is a feeling of isolation for most women. Following in the footsteps of universities like Berkeley and Princeton, Duke Math has devised a network for women called the Noetherian Ring. Named in honor of the mathematician Emmy Noether, this ring consists of women with an interest in math at all levels, from undergraduates
y< ĐŽŵŝĐ ͞,Žǁ /ƚ tŽƌŬƐ͞ to faculty. The goal is to provide a sup- port network for women as well as an op- portunity for women to post-graduates to mentor undergraduates. Hopefully, such an environment will draw more women to the department. The top tier of change involves the recruitment of more female math faculty members, a policy that Duke Math is cur- rently undertaking. I believe this could indirectly result in drawing more women to the field. With the addition of Ingrid Daubechies, there are now two tenured/ tenure track female faculty members (she joins Anita Layton). Although two among the 27 tenured faculty members is a small proportion, it’s certainly a step in the right direction. The presence of females among the faculty is of vital importance in attracting more women to mathematics.
From personal experience, having only male professors for mathematics per- petuates the gendered stereotypes of this male-dominated field. The underrepresentation of women in the field of mathematics has been well-documented, but it has yet to be completely rectified. The argument that there exists an innate gender difference in mathematical ability has been refuted, both in studies and in practice. In fact, in high school, women outperform men in mathematics. Although gendered ste- reotypes are less pronounced than in the past, they do exist today, and I believe this has a direct impact on a woman’s self- image and confidence. Hopefully, in the near future, articles like this won’t be nec- essary.
About FEMMES ǁƌŝƩĞŶ ďǇ ůůĞŶ >ŝƚŬŽǁƐŬŝ͕ & DD ^ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ ĚŝƌĞĐ-‐ tor, along with Katherine Xu and Angela Jiang
Founded in 2006 by Vicki Weston, FEMMES is a student-led organization at Duke University that hosts educational outreach programs related to math, science, and engineering for 4th-6th grade girls from underserved areas. By incorporating engaging, hands-on activities into all of our programs, we allow the girls to learn in a fun, supportive environment and explore their potential in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) ¿HOGV :H KRSH WR EXLOG RXU SDUWLFLSDQWV FRQ¿GHQFH LQ their academic skills and to empower them to pursue their dreams. Many of our students’ parents and teach- ers have told us that after attending FEMMES, the girls become more motivated, participate more in class, and show a greater interest in school. In all components of FEMMES, female students and faculty members volunteer their time to instill enthusiasm about their careers in the developing minds of young women. Through the years, our volunteers have developed personal relationships ZLWK WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG KDYH KDG D SRVLWLYH LQÀXHQFH RQ WKHLU DWWLWXGHV WRZDUGV 67(0 ¿HOGV 2XU programs provide excellent opportunities for female faculty and students to serve as role models and provide mentorship.The FEMMES organization seeks to improve female participation in STEM subjects with four main components: an annual one-day capstone event, a Saturday program, an after-school program, and a summer camp. For more information, or to get involved, please email firstname.lastname@example.org. ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ ϭϱ
STUFF WE DONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;T WANT
Ami Â V. Â Shah >Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ć&#x161;ĆľĆ&#x152;Ĺ?ĹśĹ? &Ä&#x17E;ĹŻĹŻĹ˝Ç Í&#x2022; dĹ&#x161;Ĺ˝ĹľĆ&#x2030;Ć?Ĺ˝Ĺś tĆ&#x152;Ĺ?Ć&#x;ĹśĹ? WĆ&#x152;Ĺ˝Ĺ?Ć&#x152;Ä&#x201A;Ĺľ1
ver the past year, there has been an intense dis-Â cussion regarding what is known in international aid work as gifts in kind (GIK). GIK are either services or goods (usually goods) which are donated and distributed in the name of international aid, charity, and develop-Â ment. Many in the aid community refer to the gifts of donated goods as SWEDOW (Stuff We Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Want). For years, in some cases decades, developed countries have used the developing world as its junk-Â yard, sometimes even charging for the purchase of SWEDOW. The ramifications can be obvious. For example, older air-Â planes often become the core fleet for the national airlines of developing countries. Nigeria has purchased motorized rick-Â shaws â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the type that was phased out of India due to the air pollution produced. In other situations, the GIK seem more be-Â nign â&#x20AC;&#x201C; winter coats, used toys, shoes, and even old underwear.2 But not all GIK are used goods. Who would buy a 2011 ACC championship t-Âshirt which declared UNC as the winner? No one. Well, at least no one in the United States. Abroad, how-Â ever, people might just need a new t-Âshirt. Or thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s what we think. For years, aid organizations, especially World Vision, have been sending the t-Âshirts of los-Â ing sports teams abroad. This year, they proudly announced on their website that t-Âshirts proclaiming the Pittsburgh Steel-Â ers professional football team (another one of my teamsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;alas) as Superbowl
/Í&#x203A;Ă&#x192; Â&#x192; Â?Â&#x192;Ă?ÂťÂ&#x203A;ĂŁÂ?Â&#x192;Â˝Â˝ ÂĽÂ&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Í&#x2DC; Â&#x2018;ĂŁĂ§Â&#x192;Â˝Â˝ĂšÍ&#x2022; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x192;ĂŁÍ&#x203A;Ă? Ă&#x201E;Ă&#x160;ĂŁ Ă&#x2DC;Ă§ÂŽĂŁÂ&#x203A; Â&#x192;Â&#x2018;Â&#x2018;Ă§Ă&#x2122;Â&#x192;ĂŁÂ&#x203A;Í&#x2014; /Í&#x203A;Ă&#x192; Â&#x192; Ă§ÂťÂ&#x203A; Â?Â&#x192;Ă?ÂťÂ&#x203A;ĂŁÂ?Â&#x192;Â˝Â˝ ÂĽÂ&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Í&#x2DC; / Â&#x2018;Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E; ĂłÂ&#x192;ĂŁÂ&#x2018;ÂŤ Â&#x192; ÂŚÂ&#x192;Ă&#x192;Â&#x203A;Í&#x2022; Â&#x192;Â˝Ă&#x160;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x203A;Í&#x2022; ÂŽĂ&#x201E; Ă&#x192;Ăš Â˝ÂŽĂ˛-Ââ&#x20AC;? ÂŽĂ&#x201E;ÂŚ Ă&#x2122;Ă&#x160;Ă&#x160;Ă&#x192; Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014; Â&#x2018;Â˝Â&#x192;Ă&#x2013; Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014; Â&#x2018;ÂŤÂ&#x203A;Â&#x203A;Ă&#x2122; Â&#x192;ĂŁ ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; ds Â&#x192;Ă? ÂŽÂĽ / ĂłÂ&#x192;Ă? ÂŽĂ&#x201E; Â&#x192;Ă&#x192;-Ââ&#x20AC;? Â&#x203A;Ă&#x2122;Ă&#x160;Ă&#x201E; ^ĂŁÂ&#x192;Â&#x2014;ÂŽĂ§Ă&#x192;Í&#x2DC; >ÂŽÂťÂ&#x203A; Ă&#x192;Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Ăš Ă&#x160;ÂĽ ĂšĂ&#x160;Ă§Í&#x2022; / Ă&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Â˝ÂŽĂ?ÂŤ Ă&#x160;Ă§Ă&#x2122; ĂŁÂ&#x203A;Â&#x192;Ă&#x192;Í&#x203A;Ă? Â&#x192;Â?ÂŽÂ˝-Ââ&#x20AC;? ÂŽĂŁĂš ĂŁĂ&#x160; Â&#x2014;Ă&#x2122;ÂŽĂ˛Â&#x203A; ĂŁĂ&#x160; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Â?Â&#x192;Ă?ÂťÂ&#x203A;ĂŁÍ&#x2022; Ă?ÂŤĂ&#x160;Ă&#x160;ĂŁ ĎŻÍ˛Ă&#x2013;Ă&#x160;ÂŽĂ&#x201E;ĂŁÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x2122;Ă?Í&#x2022; Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014; Â&#x2018;Ă&#x160;Ă&#x201E;ĂŁĂ&#x2122;Ă&#x160;Â˝ Â&#x192; ÂŚÂ&#x192;Ă&#x192;Â&#x203A;Í&#x2DC; / ĂłÂ&#x192;Ă? Â&#x203A;Â˝Â&#x192;ĂŁÂ&#x203A;Â&#x2014; Â&#x192;ĂŁ ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Â&#x203A;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014; Ă&#x160;ÂĽ ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; ĎŽĎŹĎĎ Â&#x2018;ÂŤÂ&#x192;Ă&#x192;Ă&#x2013;ÂŽĂ&#x160;Ă&#x201E;Ă?ÂŤÂŽĂ&#x2013; ÂŚÂ&#x192;Ă&#x192;Â&#x203A; ĂłÂŤÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x201E; EĂ&#x160;Â˝Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E; ^Ă&#x192;ÂŽĂŁÂŤ Â˝Â&#x203A;ÂĽĂŁ ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Â&#x2018;Ă&#x160;Ă§Ă&#x2122;ĂŁÍ&#x2022; Ă&#x2013;Ă&#x2122;Â&#x192;Â&#x2018;ĂŁÂŽÂ&#x2018;Â&#x192;Â˝Â˝Ăš Ă?ÂťÂŽĂ&#x2013;Ă&#x2013;ÂŽĂ&#x201E;ÂŚÍ&#x2022; Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014; ÂŤĂ§ÂŚÂŚÂ&#x203A;Â&#x2014; Ă&#x160;Â&#x192;Â&#x2018;ÂŤ <Í&#x2DC; tÂŤÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x201E; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; ÂĽÂŽĂ&#x201E;Â&#x192;Â˝ Â?Ă§ĂžĂžÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x2122; Ă?Ă&#x160;Ă§Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014;Â&#x203A;Â&#x2014;Í&#x2022; /Í&#x2022; Â˝ÂŽÂťÂ&#x203A; Ă&#x192;Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Ăš Ă&#x160;ÂĽ ĂšĂ&#x160;Ă§Í&#x2022; Â?Â&#x192;Ă?ÂťÂ&#x203A;Â&#x2014; ÂŽĂ&#x201E; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Ă˛ÂŽÂ&#x2018;ĂŁĂ&#x160;Ă&#x2122;ĂšÍ&#x2DC; Ă§ĂŁ Ă&#x192;Ăš Â?Â&#x192;Ă?ÂťÂŽĂ&#x201E;ÂŚ Â˝Â&#x192;Ă?ĂŁ-Ââ&#x20AC;? Â&#x203A;Â&#x2014; Ă&#x160;Ă&#x201E;Â˝Ăš Â&#x192; ÂĽÂ&#x203A;Ăł Ă?Â&#x203A;Â&#x2018;Ă&#x160;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014;Ă?Í&#x2022; Â?Â&#x203A;Â&#x2018;Â&#x192;Ă§Ă?Â&#x203A; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x201E; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A;Ăš Â?Ă&#x2122;Ă&#x160;Ă§ÂŚÂŤĂŁ Ă&#x160;Ă§ĂŁ ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Ă?ÂŤÂŽĂ&#x2122;ĂŁĂ?Í&#x2DC; / Ă&#x2013;Â&#x192;Ă§Ă?Â&#x203A;Â&#x2014; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; ĂŁÂ&#x203A;Â˝Â&#x203A;Â&#x2018;Â&#x192;Ă?ĂŁÍ&#x2022; Â&#x2018;Ă&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Ă&#x2013;ĂŁ ĂŁĂ&#x160; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Ă?Â&#x2018;Ă&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Â&#x203A;Ă&#x201E;Í&#x2022; Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014; Â˝Ă&#x160;Ă&#x160;ÂťÂ&#x203A;Â&#x2014; Â&#x2018;Â˝Ă&#x160;Ă?Â&#x203A;Â˝ĂšÍ&#x2DC; ^Ă§Ă&#x2122;Â&#x203A; Â&#x203A;Ă&#x201E;Ă&#x160;Ă§ÂŚÂŤÍ&#x2022; Â&#x203A;Â&#x192;Â&#x2018;ÂŤ Ă?ÂŤÂŽĂ&#x2122;ĂŁÍ&#x2022; Â&#x203A;Â&#x192;Â&#x2018;ÂŤ Â&#x2018;Â&#x192;Ă&#x2013;Í&#x2022; Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;Â&#x2014; Â&#x203A;Â&#x192;Â&#x2018;ÂŤ ĂŁĂ&#x160;ĂłÂ&#x203A;Â˝ Ă&#x2013;Ă&#x2122;Ă&#x160;Ă§Â&#x2014;Â˝Ăš Â˝ÂŽĂ?ĂŁÂ&#x203A;Â&#x2014; Í&#x161; Ă§ÂťÂ&#x203A;Í&#x203A; Â&#x192;Ă? ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Â&#x2018;ÂŤÂ&#x192;Ă&#x192;Ă&#x2013;ÂŽĂ&#x160;Ă&#x201E;Í&#x2DC; dÂŤÂŽĂ? Ă&#x192;Â&#x203A;Â&#x192;Ă&#x201E;ĂŁ ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x192;ĂŁ Â&#x192;Â˝Â˝ Ă&#x160;ÂĽ ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A;Ă?Â&#x203A; ÂŽĂŁÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x192;Ă? ĂłÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x2122;Â&#x203A; Â&#x192;Â˝Ă?Ă&#x160; Ă&#x192;Â&#x192;Â&#x2014;Â&#x203A; ÂĽĂ&#x160;Ă&#x2122; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Ă&#x160;ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x2122; Ă&#x2013;Ă&#x160;ĂŁÂ&#x203A;Ă&#x201E;ĂŁÂŽÂ&#x192;Â˝ Â&#x2018;ÂŤÂ&#x192;Ă&#x192;Ă&#x2013;ÂŽĂ&#x160;Ă&#x201E;Í&#x2014; hE Í&#x2DC; DĂš ÂŤĂ&#x160;Ă&#x2122;Ă&#x2122;Ă&#x160;Ă&#x2122; ÂŚĂ&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Ăł Â&#x192;Ă? / Ă&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Â&#x192;Â˝-Ââ&#x20AC;? ÂŽĂžÂ&#x203A;Â&#x2014; ĂłÂŤÂ&#x192;ĂŁ ĂłÂ&#x192;Ă? ÂŚĂ&#x160;ÂŽĂ&#x201E;ÂŚ ĂŁĂ&#x160; ÂŤÂ&#x192;Ă&#x2013;Ă&#x2013;Â&#x203A;Ă&#x201E; ĂŁĂ&#x160; ĂŁÂŤÂ&#x203A; Â˝Ă&#x160;Ă?Â&#x203A;Ă&#x2122;Ă?Í&#x203A; ĂŁÍ˛Ă?ÂŤÂŽĂ&#x2122;ĂŁĂ?Í&#x2DC; Champions (they lost) would be distributed to countries such as Zambia, Nicaragua, and Romania.3 The virtual community of development bloggers and tweeters took noteâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;World Vision was not only behind on the discussion regarding the downfalls of GIK, but completely unaware of it, and unpre-Â pared for the debate that followed which discussed the limits of good will and the effects of bad aid.4 The public often supports GIK, as our own individual donations make us feel that we are doing something useful, and there seems to be an immedi-Â ate positive impact. These impulses are out of good will, yet GIK has the po-Â tential to negatively affect the recipients, often doing more harm than good. GIK, even if just a simple t-Âshirt, raise significant ethical concerns based on their impact in the receiving country, the benefits accrued to the organiza-Â tions involved, and our own patterns of consumption and valuation of sport-Â ing events.
he GIK controversy start- ed to enter the public realm in earnest with the 1Million Shirts campaign. Jason Sadler, a young Florida busi- nessman and sometimes aid work- er, formed a successful enterprise called I Wear Your Shirt (http:// www.iwearyourshirt.com). Based on his ability in marketing via so- cial media and a desire to do some- thing with the excess t-shirts, Sadler decided to collect one million used t-shirts and send them to Africa to help those in need.5 His plan was announced on April 27, 2010, via social media, receiving thousands of tweets in response—mostly criti- cal. Sadler was relatively new to the aid arena, and to the world of de- velopment tweeting and blogging. He had missed similar controversies surrounding the donation of goods after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010. This time, though, the message was clear: de- spite his good intentions, sending t-shirts to the developing world would hurt more than help. Why? First, donating goods is not free. There are shipping costs (which can be $8,000-$10,000 per shipping container), administrative costs, and customs costs.6 Second, there’s no clear indication that there’s an extensive lack or desper- ate need for t-shirts. World Vision itself claims that the places that receive these items “don’t have electricity or running water.”7 While that statement may seem to suggest that those living in such con- ditions thus need any handout they can receive, that argument does not hold. Again, World Vision has been unable to demonstrate the need for distributing GIK. Further, considering the expense in- volved with transport, would it not be bet- ter if those funds were spent on providing electricity or running water, or even sup- porting local shops and clothing sellers? Moreover, the communities receiving GIK often already have access to goods, including clothing. There are local tex- tile industries and trade in secondhand goods in Africa—both of which are under- mined by the distribution of free shirts. For example, African cotton producers
are striving to maintain their businesses in an international market that is often imbalanced. The United States, amongst others, subsidizes their own cotton indus- try, making it more difficult for producers such as Ghana to trade internationally. In other countries, particularly in East Africa, textile plants (cloth manufacturers) have closed because of the influx of both free and secondhand goods. The livelihoods of traders of secondhand goods thus also need to be considered. Although the second-hand clothes traded may be in- expensive, the distribution of free goods reduces demand, forcing the seller to ei- ther lower his or her price, or abandon the business. Either option has significant implications for not just income, but also standard of living—if one doesn’t have money, he or she can’t buy food, pay the rent, or pay for healthcare. Many also ar- gue that distribution of free goods creates systemic dependency, instead of promot- ing long-term development. In response, World Vision argues that it purposefully distributes these t-shirts in small amounts to a variety of countries from Europe to Africa to Latin America. This lowers the impact on local markets, yet it raises all other overhead costs, again calling the ef- fectiveness of dollars spent into question. In addition to the questionable de- velopmental value of GIK, there are also ethical concerns about donating SWE- DOW. Many will say ‘they need clothes, it doesn’t matter what condition’–yet, these are shirts that have been rejected from the American market. It’s akin to re- gifting the disliked fruitcake from Aunt Gertrude, which you receive every year and shamefacedly pass on, knowing that it may never be tasted.
<ŝŵ d ǀŝĂ &ůŝĐŬƌ͗ ^ŵĂůů ^ŚŽƉƐ ŽĨ hƐĞĚ ůŽƚŚŝŶŐ ;dĂŶǌĂŶŝĂͿ
Is it all in the numbers?
f distributing GIK is not good aid, why do it? It has large implications for public relations and accounting. Undoubtedly, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NCAA organizations have tried to spin the donation of shirts in their advan- tage. With articles in everything from the local press to the New York Times, these organizations claim benevolence and overstate the developmental impact of their contributions. For World Vision and other organizations, they not only receive the benefit of positive public perceptions, but also are then able to claim the amount of the donation as part of “program costs.” In 2010, they listed $251 million of their program costs coming from donations. This helps to balance their own account- ing, demonstrating that they spend more on development projects than on admin- istration. The public likes to believe that the organization it donates to has low overhead, so this further boosts the or- ganization’s public image. In addition, it increases their rankings on nonprofit rat- ing sites.8 Continued on the next page...
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ ϭϳ
Do we really need the t-Âshirts?
t is unquestionable that the sporting industry in America is both promi-Â nent and profitable. Why make so many shirts? Well, they sell. If you were in Greensboro watching Dukeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lat-Â est ACC championship, you may have wanted to buy a shirt immediately on your
... WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER IF [DONATION] FUNDS WERE SPENT ON PROVIDING ELECTRICITY OR RUNNING WATER, OR EVEN SUPPORTING LOCAL SHOPS AND CLOTHING SELLERS? way out of the coliseum. But what if you waited? Or, what if there were no shirts? If there were no shirts, the players who won the game would still be the champi-Â ons. They would still be able to jump up and down, celebrate, and cut down the net. They would still receive the trophy and be able to bring it back to their home school. If we really needed shirts, we could per-Â haps limit them in two ways: 1.Make only enough for the championship team, finish producing and distribute the remaining shirts the next day for public sale and/or 2. Wait until the next day. Sadly, I doubt anything will change. Players will still play exciting games, t-Â shirts and caps and towels and the rest will still be immediately distributed, and World Vision will collect the unwanted items and send them overseas. Sports organizations and clothing producers will argue that the shirts and other items are expected at the end of the games, and that selling them immediately is too prof-Â itable of a practice to abandon. Someone
will argue that the donation of the shirts to needy countries around the world is not a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;big dealâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and is done in good faith, with good intentions. Our need for immediate consumption, and the immediate sharing and purchasing of victories, will over-Â whelm the demand for better, smarter, aid. Wasteful production will be allowed to continue.
keep our shirts, and other SWEDOW, and limit our production of what we know will be throw-Âaway goods. Then not only could we cheer when our basketball team wins, but also bask in the victory without simultaneously forcing the developing world to make use of UNC t-Âshirts. If we wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want them, why would they?
t the end of the ACC Cham-Â pionship game, I saw those shirts. My immediate ques-Â tion was â&#x20AC;&#x153;who will be get-Â ting those?â&#x20AC;? It didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t take much research, or time, to discover that World Vision has a monopoly not just on the Superbowl shirts, but on the majority of sporting goods of losing teams, including those from the ACC. UNCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shirts could be headed to Zambia, Nicaragua, or maybe Romania at this very moment. Everyone could always use a free t-Âshirt, right? And of course, they are distributed with the in-Â tent to help. But that intent is not enough, not when we know the potential negative implica-Â tions in recipient countries, the alternative needs which could be addressed with the funds spent on overhead and transporta-Â tion, and that there is no evidence dem-Â onstrating the need for or benefits of GIK. Why not, instead, focus our aid efforts on facilitating change, instead of promoting the status quo? For starters, we could
1 tĹ?Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161; Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;ĹśĹŹĆ? Ć&#x161;Ĺ˝ ^Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161; Ĺ˝Ç ĹŻÄ&#x201A;ĹśÄ&#x161;Í&#x2022; :Ĺ˝ĹśÄ&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ĺś Dueck, Â and Â Tom Â Murphy Â for Â their Â comments, Â and Â Ć&#x161;Ĺ˝ ^Ä&#x201A;ĆľĹśÄ&#x161;Ć&#x152;Ä&#x201A; ^Ä?Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ?ĹľĹľÄ&#x17E;ĹŻĆ&#x2030;Ä¨Ä&#x17E;ĹśĹśĹ?Ĺ? Ä¨Ĺ˝Ć&#x152; Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x152; Ĺ?ĹľĹľÄ&#x201A;Ä?ĆľĹŻÄ&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E; Ä?Ĺ&#x161;Ć&#x152;Ĺ˝ĹśĹ?Ä?ĹŻÄ&#x17E; Ĺ˝Ä¨ Ç&#x20AC;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x152;Ĺ?Ĺ˝ĆľĆ? '/< Ä&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ć?Í&#x2DC; 2 ^Ä&#x201A;Ä&#x161;ĹŻÇ&#x2021;Í&#x2022; Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E; Ç Ä&#x201A;Ć? Ĺ?ĹśÄ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x161; Ä&#x201A;Ĺś Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ĺ?Ä&#x201A;ĹśĹ?Ç&#x152;Ä&#x201A;-Ââ&#x20AC;? Ć&#x;Ĺ˝Ĺś Ä?Ä&#x201A;ĹŻĹŻÄ&#x17E;Ä&#x161; <ĹśĹ?Ä?ĹŹÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ć?Ď° Ä¨Ć&#x152;Ĺ?Ä?Ä&#x201A; ÍžĆ?Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x17E; Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E; Ç Ĺ?ĹśĹśÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ć? Ĺ˝Ä¨ Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E; Ć&#x161;Ĺ˝ĹśĹ?ĆľÄ&#x17E;Í˛Ĺ?ĹśÍ˛Ä?Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x17E;ĹŹ ^t Kt Ä&#x201A;Ç Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x152;Ä&#x161;Ć?Í&#x2014; Ĺ&#x161;ĆŠĆ&#x2030;Í&#x2014;ÍŹÍŹĆ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;ĹŻÄ&#x17E;Ć?-Ââ&#x20AC;? Ä¨Ć&#x152;Ĺ˝ĹľÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ˝Ĺ˝Ä&#x161;Í&#x2DC;Ä?Ĺ˝ĹľÍŹĎŽĎŹĎĎÍŹĎŹĎÍŹĎĎľÍŹÄ&#x201A;ĹśĹśĹ˝ĆľĹśÄ?Ĺ?ĹśĹ?Í˛Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Í˛ Ç Ĺ?ĹśĹśÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ć?ÍŹÍżÍ&#x2022; Ç Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ?Ä?Ĺ&#x161; Ĺ?Ć? ĹśĹ˝Ç Ä&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ä¨ĆľĹśÄ?Ć&#x161;Í&#x2DC; ZÇ Ä&#x201A;ĹśÄ&#x161;Ä&#x201A; Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ä&#x17E;ĹśĆ&#x161;ĹŻÇ&#x2021; Ć&#x2030;Ä&#x201A;Ć?Ć?Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x161; Ä&#x201A; ĹŻÄ&#x201A;Ç Ć&#x2030;Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E;Ç&#x20AC;Ä&#x17E;ĹśĆ&#x;ĹśĹ? Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E; Ĺ?ĹľĆ&#x2030;Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x;Ĺ˝Ĺś Ä&#x201A;ĹśÄ&#x161; Ć?Ä&#x17E;ĹŻĹŻĹ?ĹśĹ? Ĺ˝Ä¨ ĆľĆ?Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x161; ĆľĹśÄ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ç Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x152;Í&#x2014; Ĺ&#x161;ĆŠĆ&#x2030;Í&#x2014;ÍŹÍŹÇ Ç Ç Í&#x2DC;ĹśÄ&#x17E;Ç Ć&#x;ĹľÄ&#x17E;Ć?Í&#x2DC;Ä?Ĺ˝Í&#x2DC;Ć&#x152;Ç ÍŹĹ?Ĺś-Ââ&#x20AC;? Ä&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ç&#x2020;Í&#x2DC;Ć&#x2030;Ĺ&#x161;Ć&#x2030;Í?Ĺ?Ć?Ć?ĆľÄ&#x17E;Ń ĎĎ°ĎąĎĎÎ&#x2DC;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x152;Ć&#x;Ä?ĹŻÄ&#x17E;Ń ĎŻĎłĎąĎłĎ´Í&#x2DC; 3 Â Ĺ&#x161;Ć&#x161;Ć&#x161;Ć&#x2030;Í&#x2014;ÍŹÍŹÄ?ĹŻĹ˝Ĺ?Í&#x2DC;Ç Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;ĹŻÄ&#x161;Ç&#x20AC;Ĺ?Ć?Ĺ?Ĺ˝ĹśÍ&#x2DC;Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ĺ? ÍŹ Ć&#x2030;Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x152;Ć&#x161;ĹśÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ć?Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ?Ć&#x2030;Ć?ÍŹĎĎŹĎŹĎŹĎŹĎŹÍ˛Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x201A;Ć?Ĺ˝ĹśĆ?Í˛Ć&#x161;Ĺ˝Í˛ĹŻĹ˝Ç&#x20AC;Ä&#x17E;Í˛Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Í˛Ć?ĆľĆ&#x2030;Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Í˛ Ä?Ĺ˝Ç ĹŻÍŹ 4 dĹ˝ Ä¨Ĺ˝ĹŻĹŻĹ˝Ç Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E; Ä&#x17E;ĹśĆ&#x;Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E; Ä&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Í&#x2022; Ć&#x2030;ĹŻÄ&#x17E;Ä&#x201A;Ć?Ä&#x17E; Ć?Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x17E; Ĺ&#x161;Ć&#x161;Ć&#x161;Ć&#x2030;Í&#x2014;ÍŹÍŹĹ?Ĺ˝Ĺ˝Ä&#x161;Ĺ?ĹśĆ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;ĹśĆ&#x161;Ć?Í&#x2DC;Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ĺ?ÍŹÄ&#x201A;Ĺ?Ä&#x161;Í˛Ä&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ć?ÍŹÇ Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;ĹŻÄ&#x161;Í˛Ç&#x20AC;Ĺ?Ć?Ĺ?Ĺ˝ĹśÍ˛ ĹśĹ&#x2021;Í˛Ä?Ĺ˝ĹśĆ&#x161;Ć&#x152;Ĺ˝Ç&#x20AC;Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ć?Ç&#x2021; 5 Â Although Â he Â has Â abandoned Â his Â plans, Â the Â Ç Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ć?Ĺ?Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E; Ĺ?Ć? Ć?Ć&#x;ĹŻĹŻ Ä&#x201A;Ç&#x20AC;Ä&#x201A;Ĺ?ĹŻÄ&#x201A;Ä?ĹŻÄ&#x17E; Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ä&#x17E;Í&#x2014; Ĺ&#x161;ĆŠĆ&#x2030;Í&#x2014;ÍŹÍŹĎĹľĹ?ĹŻĹŻĹ?Ĺ˝ĹśĆ?Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ?Ć&#x152;Ć&#x161;Ć?Í&#x2DC; Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ĺ?ÍŹ 6 Â Ĺ&#x161;ĆŠĆ&#x2030;Í&#x2014;ÍŹÍŹÇ Ç Ç Í&#x2DC;Ć?ĆľĆ&#x2030;Ć&#x2030;ĹŻÇ&#x2021;Ä?Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ĺ?ĹśÄ&#x161;Ĺ?Ĺ?Ĺ?Ć&#x161;Ä&#x201A;ĹŻÍ&#x2DC;Ä?Ĺ˝ĹľÍŹĆ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ĺ?Ć?ÍŹ Ć?ĆľĆ&#x2030;Ć&#x2030;ĹŻÇ&#x2021;Í˛Ä?Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x201A;Ĺ?ĹśÍŹĆ?Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x17E;ĹŻÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ć?Í˛Ç&#x20AC;Ć?Í˛Ć&#x2030;Ä&#x201A;Ä?ĹŹÄ&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Ć?Í˛Ç Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ˝Í˛Ć?Í˛Ć?ĆľĆ&#x2030;Ä&#x17E;Ć&#x152;Í˛Ä?Ĺ˝Ç ĹŻÍ˛ xlv-Ââ&#x20AC;?merch-Ââ&#x20AC;?going-Ââ&#x20AC;?abroad 7 Â New Â York Â TimesÍ&#x2022; &Ä&#x17E;Ä?Ć&#x152;ĆľÄ&#x201A;Ć&#x152;Ç&#x2021; Ď°Í&#x2022; ĎŽĎŹĎŹĎłÍ&#x2DC; 8 Â Â Ĺ&#x161;Ć&#x161;Ć&#x161;Ć&#x2030;Í&#x2014;ÍŹÍŹĹ?Ĺ˝Ĺ˝Ä&#x161;Ĺ?ĹśĆ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;ĹśĆ&#x161;Ć?Í&#x2DC;Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ĺ?ÍŹĆľĹśÄ?Ä&#x201A;Ć&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Ĺ?Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;Ĺ?Ç&#x152;Ä&#x17E;Ä&#x161;ÍŹ Ç Ĺ˝Ć&#x152;ĹŻÄ&#x161;Í˛Ç&#x20AC;Ĺ?Ć?Ĺ?Ĺ˝ĹśÍ˛Ć&#x161;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x17E;Í˛ĹśÄ&#x17E;Ç Í˛ĎĎŹĎŹĎŹĎŹĎŹÍ˛Ć?Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ?Ć&#x152;Ć&#x161;Ć?
World Vision is a Christian relief, development, and advocacy organization with over 50 years of international experience, from working with orphans, to providing disaster relief, to fostering community-based development against poverty. It has had programs in 5 continents and 96 counWULHV ZLWK RYHU ELOOLRQ LQ GRQDWLRQV DQG Ă&#x20AC;QDQFLDO VXSSRUW LQ
Interested in making aid better? Â Â Here are some key thinkers on the subject â&#x20AC;&#x201C; while they write extensively in more formal arenas, their responses to contemporary issues are most easily followed via their blogs and twitterfeeds. Â&#x2021; Â&#x2021; Â&#x2021; Â&#x2021;
Good Intentions are not Enough (http://goodintents.org) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a blog by Saundra Schimmelpfennig, representing decades of experience and lesVRQV OHDUQHG IURP WKH ZRUOG RI QRQSURĂ&#x20AC;WV DQG LQWHUQDWLRQDO DLG Aid Watch (http://aidwatchers.com) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a blog project of the Development Research Institute at New York University, led by the economist Bill Easterly. A View from the Cave (http://www.aviewfromthecave.com/) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a blog by Tom Murphy, focusing on smart aid and development. Texas in Africa (http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an academic blog about African politics, security, development, and advocacy.
CONFESSIONS of a Resident Advisor
by Â Yi Â Zhang Ä?Ĺ˝ĹśĹ˝ĹľĹ?Ä?Ć? Ä&#x201A;ĹśÄ&#x161; WĆ?Ç&#x2021;Ä?Ĺ&#x161;Ĺ˝ĹŻĹ˝Ĺ?Ç&#x2021; Í&#x161;ĎĎ
solemnly swear to you that I have never written up a freshman for drinking. Nor have I written anyone up for the innumerable other acts I have seen performed out of what I hope was sheer boredom: lighting up a bulletin board, or throwing an appleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;or a box of condomsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;out of D VHFRQG Ă&#x20AC;RRU ZLQGRZ ,Q IDFW WKH RQO\ WKLQJ WKDW has ever forced me to submit an incident report is stupidity. It is as simple as that. If I learned anything at Duke, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s this: the only way to get through all four years and maintain a good relationship with your RA is to be smart. Despite the cynicism you might have detected VR IDU , GR QRW ÂżQG DQ\ MR\ LQ KHDULQJ IUHVKPHQ scurry behind closed doors as I wait patiently for â&#x20AC;&#x153;the girl who is changingâ&#x20AC;? in a room of thirty people (changing where? and why does she need to change if everyone is already dressed like pirates?). In fact, I would bet anything that my own fear is greater than any freshmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. My greatest concern always was that someone will hear my racing heart and my stuttering tongue, which will make me lose my credibility, and then there would be nothing to prevent the thirty people IURP OHDYLQJ WKH URRP ZLWK WKHLU PLGGOH ÂżQJHUV in the air. To be honest, I did not become an RA to write SHRSOH XS 1RU GLG , HYHQ HQYLVLRQ LW WR EH D PDMRU SDUW RI WKH MRE GHVFULSWLRQ ZKHQ , ÂżUVW DSSOLHG ,Q P\ ÂżUVW \HDU , ZDV SHUKDSV RQH RI WKH PRVW awkward freshmen you could have stumbled upon on East Campus, but my own RA helped me imPHQVHO\ WR DGMXVW WR FROOHJH 2XW RI D GHVLUH WR pass onto other freshmen the help that I received, I applied to be an RA and have consequently remained on East for the past four years. What I
Study break with cookies in t he common roo m tomorrow a t 9pm! :)
would say has been my most valuable position at 'XNH KDV DOVR EHHQ P\ PRVW GLIÂżFXOW $V DQ 5$ , FRQVWDQWO\ MXJJOH RSSRVLQJ JRDOV RI ZDQWLQJ WR develop a close relationship with my hallmates, while also maintaining some level of credibility. There is never a time when the two are compatLEOH $V DQ 5$ , HLWKHU GR P\ MRE RU , GRQÂśW $QG LQ PRVW FDVHV QRW GRLQJ P\ MRE LV DV PXFK D GLVservice to my boss as it would be to the residents. %XW GRLQJ P\ MRE FDQ EH LQFUHGLEO\ GHPRUDOizing as well. I had never been called, or even considered, the b-word in my lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;until I became an RA. My overly-conscious mind has become more VLFN DQG SDUDQRLG 7KH ÂżUVW WKRXJKW WKDW FRPHV to my head when I see a random freshman look (glare?) over at me is, â&#x20AC;&#x153;what dorm do you live in?â&#x20AC;? The question is but a vain attempt to connect the personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s face to an incident that happened weeks ago. Disliked? Me? Yes, disliked me. Yet, despite those discouraging encounters, my time as an RA has taught me to get along with my residents. Just as the key to leaving Duke with a clean record is to be smart, the key to being the â&#x20AC;&#x153;cool RAâ&#x20AC;? is to form relationships that go beyond MXVW VKDULQJ D KDOO ,WÂśV WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZH EXLOW while in the bathroom, brushing our teeth at 2 A.M., and the ones spent on Cookout runs after Personal Checks that matter. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the times I told my residents about my own freshman mistakes while holding their hair back as they vomited that strengthened our bonds. Because, as hard as it was to believe, I was a freshman before becoming an RA, and it took me three years to â&#x20AC;&#x153;get smart.â&#x20AC;?
Ć?Ć&#x2030;Ć&#x152;Ĺ?ĹśĹ? ĎŽĎŹĎĎ ĎĎľ
G IN AY
n the past, there were times when I would lose myself in video games. Isolating my- self in my room, completely oblivious to what was going on outside, I would be immersed in the fantastic world of vir- tual reality that video games presented. Having dedicated a lot of time to video games myself, I can easily understand why World of Warcraft, a virtual reality game introduced by Blizzard Entertain- ment in 2001, continues to be one of the most popular online games, still attracting new users and even setting a record in PC game sales in 2008 with 2.8 million copies sold after 24 hours of release of its new expansion pack. However, as someone who has, on multiple occasions, regretted not spending my time in more productive ways, I sympathize with the popular view that video games are largely a waste of time. According to the video games design- er and researcher Jane McGonigal, the human race spends about 3 billion hours a week playing video games. As it stands, the popular view about the video game industry is that its sole purpose is to en- tertain, and it is difficult to argue against this opinion. Despite having poured in so much of my time and effort into cultivat-
Ǉ tŝůůŝĂŵ ,ǇƵŶŐ WƐǇĐŚŽůŽŐǇ͛ϭϮ
“the human race spends about
ing a ‘virtual life’ in various video game worlds, I had to come back to reality at some point, and all I brought back from the realm of video games was the satisfac- tion gained from role-playing in a fantasy world, pretending I was somebody else. Moreover, the image of a gamer addict, who neglects sleep and threatens his or her sanity and relationships to spend countless hours role-playing in a virtual reality cannot be doing the industry much good. In addition, the ongoing debate re- garding a possible link between violence in video games and aggression in real life steepens the negative perception many people have about video games. This concern only grows larger as virtual real- ity technology advances, creating games that simulate reality with startling pixel quality and accuracy. However, the repu- tation of the video gaming industry can still be salvaged. What if one had an ex- cuse to play video games? What if playing video games actually made you a better person?
3 billion hours a week playing video games...”
As it turns out, new applications of vir- tual reality are beginning to appear in video games that attempt to simulate real life situations in order to, believe it or not, make the world a better place. Fate of the World, which has only recently been re- leased, is a strategy-based game that sim- ulates the real impact--social, economic, and environmental--that global warming is predicted to have on the world com- munity in the next 200 years. The game challenges you, the gamer, to devise a plan to save the planet from destruc-
Virtual reality technology would not have advanced so much in such little time if not for the intense com- petition to draw gamers by many video game designers. Rather than being a technology used almost ex- clusively by the video game indus- try to simulate a fantasy (or a very life-like) lifestyle, the high level of visualization that it provides opens tremendous possibilities for educa- tion, therapy, and countless others.
tion, and, surprisingly enough, it’s not an easy task! From achieving technological breakthroughs to establishing diplomatic relations, the gamer has to do it all. The game is packed with “real” features, both in terms of impact and solutions, which are all based on the research conducted by Dr Myles Allen’s group at Oxford Uni- versity. Furthermore, part of the proceeds from the game sales go to a powerful co- alition of NGOs called TckTckTck that is fighting climate change. It may seem doubtful that these games will have a measurable impact in human- ity’s fight against global warming. Howev- er, according to a study done among over 6,000 fans of Guitar Hero and Rock Band, games that simulate playing a musical in- strument, 67% of gamers were propelled to learn the real instrument, and 76% of those who already had some musical skill were inspired to resume their studies. Hence, if simulation games can influence actions in real life, and if video games are such powerful tools to gather the attention of a massive audience, initiatives such as Fate of the World may prove to be very beneficial. The funny thing is that people recognized that several years ago. Games
'ĂŵĞƐ ĨŽƌ Health
tŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĞǆƚĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƌĞĂůͲůŝĨĞ ƐŝŵƵůĂƟŽŶ ǀŝƌƚƵĂů ƌĞĂůŝƚǇ ĐĂŶ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞ͕ ŝƚ ŝƐ ƐƚĂƌƟŶŐ ƚŽ ďĞ used amongst health professionals. ƵŬĞ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ ^ĐŚŽŽů ŽĨ DĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ is looking ŝŶƚŽ ƵƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐǇ ƚŽ ƐŝŵƵůĂƚĞ ƉĂƟĞŶƚ ĐĂƌĞ ƐŝƚƵĂƟŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ ƚĞĂŵǁŽƌŬ͕ ďǇ allowing the students’ avatars to interact with ƉĂƟĞŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĐůŝŶŝĐŝĂŶƐ͘ /Ŷ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶ͕ ŵĂŶǇ psychologists have begun using virtual reality ƚŽ ƚƌĞĂƚ ƉĂƟĞŶƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƉŚŽďŝĂ ŝŶ ĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞ ƚŚĞƌĂƉŝĞƐ͘ hƐŝŶŐ ǀŝƌƚƵĂů ƌĞĂůŝƚǇ ŽŌĞŶ ŚĂƐ ƐŝŵŝůĂƌ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ĂƐ ƌĞĂůͲůŝĨĞ ĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞƐ͕ ďƵƚ ŝƚ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ĐĂƌƌŝĞĚ ŽƵƚ ŝŶ Ă ƐĂĨĞ͕ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚ ƐĞƫŶŐ͘
for Change, or G4C, is a movement that promotes and encourages the creation of video games that facilitate social change. The annual G4C festival in NYC brings together politicians, leaders in civic soci- ety, media, academia, corporations, and, of course, the gaming industry, to explore ways digital games can be used as an agent for social change. The festival also provides a dynamic scene for showing off the world’s most innovative games. What makes video games so compel- ling, enough to forsake, for a time, the real world? Jane McGonigal thinks it’s simply the overpowering feeling of optimism, the uplifting feeling that comes from pulling off a ridiculous headshot as your char- acter was on the verge of dying when playing Halo 3 online on Xbox, or finally finding the key for that door you couldn’t open for days in the Legend of Zelda. In a $1.5 million study in 2008, Harvard sci- entists disproved the established opinion that video games cause violence in kids; they showed that playing video games is mostly a way to relieve stress in most chil- dren. McGonigal suggests that, instead of relieving stress, video games induce a state of so-called “eustress,” or healthy, good stress, which results in the feelings of fulfillment and optimism. Sure enough, frustration does abound as the gamer gets familiar with a new game and its rules, but soon enough he or she feels nothing
,ĂǀĞ ǇŽƵ ŚĞĂƌĚ ŽĨ ͞ĞǆĞƌŐĂŵŝŶŐ͍͟ /ƚ͛Ɛ Ă type of video game that forces you to exercise while playing, like ƵŵďĂ &ŝƚ-‐ ness or tŝŝ &ŝƚ. It turns out that medi-‐ cal use of video games does not stop ũƵƐƚ ƚŚĞƌĞ͘ 'ĂŵĞƐ ĨŽƌ ,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ ĂŶ ŝŶŝƟĂƟǀĞ ƐƚĂƌƚĞĚ ŝŶ ϮϬϬϰ͕ ƐƚƌŝǀĞƐ ƚŽ ďƌŝŶŐ ƚŽ-‐ ŐĞƚŚĞƌ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůƐ ĨƌŽŵ ŵĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ĂŶĚ ǀŝĚĞŽ ŐĂŵĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ ƚŽ ƵƐĞ ĐƵƫŶŐͲ edge games and game technologies to improve health and healthcare. Did you know that Tetris, the classic video game, was shown to boost brainpower? ƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůǇ͕ ƚŚĞ ƐĐĂŶƐ ŽĨ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂŶƚƐ͛ ďƌĂŝŶƐ ƌĞǀĞĂůĞĚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ŐƌĂǇ ŵĂƩĞƌ ŝŶ ƉĂƌƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƌ ďƌĂŝŶƐ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕ ĐƌŝƟĐĂů ƚŚŝŶŬŝŶŐ͕ ƌĞĂƐŽŶŝŶŐ͕ language and processing.
ŝs ; ƵŬĞ /ŵŵĞƌƐŝǀĞ sŝƌƚƵĂů ŶŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚͿ
dŚĞ ŝŶŝƟĂƟǀĞ ƚŽ ƵƐĞ ǀŝƌƚƵĂů ƌĞĂůŝƚǇ ĂƐ ĂŶ ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĂů vehicle is taking place at Duke as well, with programs such as DiVE. ŝs ŝƐ Ă ϲͲƐŝĚĞĚ ǀŝƌƚƵĂů reality theater that aims to provide ƌĞĮŶĞĚ ǀŝƐƵĂůŝǌĂƟŽŶ ƚŽ ƉƌŽŵŽƚĞ interdisciplinary research and expand ƚŚĞ ƐĐŽƉĞ ŽĨ ƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ŝŶ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ĮĞůĚƐ ĂŶĚ ĂƌĞĂƐ͘ /ƚƐ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŝƐ ƚŽ ƵƐĞ ǀŝƌƚƵĂů ƌĞĂůŝƚǇ ĂƐ ĂŶ ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĂů ĚĞǀŝĐĞ͕ ƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚ ŶŽƚ ŽŶůǇ Ăƚ ƐĐŝĞŶƟƐƚƐ ƚŽ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞ ďĞƩĞƌ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ŽĨ ĮĞůĚƐ ůŝŬĞ ŵŽůĞĐƵůĂƌ ďŝŽůŽŐǇ Žƌ ďƌĂŝŶ ŵĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵƐ͕ ďƵƚ ĂůƐŽ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ďĞƩĞƌ ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĂů ĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐ ĨŽƌ ǇŽƵŶŐ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƵŶĚĞƌŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞƐ͘ &ŝŶĚ ŽƵƚ ŵŽƌĞ Ăƚ ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬǀŝƐ͘ĚƵŬĞ͘ĞĚƵͬĚŝǀĞ
but thrill at the start of another Need For Speed race. And even in the face of fail- ure, gamers are hopeful enough to try it over and over again. The gamers’ feeling of euphoria that overflows when they finally beat the game can spread to those around them, as an- other group of Harvard psychologists point out. Just like watching somebody crack a particularly hard problem, see- ing your friend overcome a challenge in a video game may spur you on to achieve the goals of your own. As far-fetched as it sounds, there may be a tiny possibility that this motivating optimism could in- deed be contagious. You might object that this discussion does not apply to most video games we see in stores and homes. After all, more often than not, playing video games is a waste of time. The sort of motivating op- timism won’t help solve the problems of the outside world if it only keeps the gam- ers at their screens, pursuing more and more virtual achievements. We must nev- ertheless recognize the value of playing the game: we are given an opportunity to achieve something great that, who knows, might spill over into the real world!
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ Ϯϭ
The Bloom on the Cheek of Youth
a brief history of the problem of pleasure
tymology has always baffled me. Perhaps it is its placement within an argument. Imagine an author quite like myself who has a broad question: “What is pleasure?” How would said author begin to describe it? Perhaps she would try to reach out to a common statement of pleasure in our country: “We are an unhappy people.” To whom does ‘we’ in this sentence refer? And what exactly does this ‘we’ think unhappi- ness is? Is unhappiness synonymous with displeasure? Further, what justifications would accompany these claims? I imagine the author would then turn to empirical statistics, but she would soon find these to be laden with a very particular type of dis- pleasure generally displayed biochemi- cally. Her findings may state, “Ten Percent of Americans are on antidepressants.” Af- ter a bit of fact-checking, the author would discover more than half of these people are taking their medications for back pain, nerve pain, fatigue, sleep difficulties, and other problems not necessarily correlated with depression. So now that the author has analyzed her biochemical statistics, what about specific demographic ones? The issues associated with various biases, ethnic, cultural, and economic, skew data in a way that no paper could account for them in scope or particularity. What per- cent of the Amish are on anti-depression medications? Or Asian-Americans? Or people who live in downtown DC? What about those in Southgate dorm? Also ac- companying our ever-frustrated author’s analysis is a vague definition of pleasure, generally accompanied by words like “positive” or “enjoyable”, increasingly due to strong chemical correlation de- fined in terms of neurobiological prin- ciples. Soon she becomes disenchanted
with even this definition. What does point- ing to the notes of Mozart’s symphony do to illuminate the experience of his work? A neurobiological principle of pleasure begins to seem like notes on a page. It’s a bit like describing exercise in terms of a heart rate, without commenting on the general aim of exercise: namely to keep one healthy. This frustrated universal defi- nition of pleasure alienates a functional definition for an empirical one. It may be ‘right’ on a universal level, but it certainly does very little to inform the function of human action on the particular, which is a primary function of a definition. Then comes the etymological step. It seems to me at this point the author is scrambling and reaching for anything, and that anything at this particular point is history. Perhaps appealing to the his- tory of the word pleasure starting with, say, John Locke, the thesis will become more tenable. Personally, this rhetorical move seems to be the most misguided of all the argumentative moves. It has always called to mind the old man sitting in his chair lamenting the loss of the good old days, when farming kept you grounded, and different water fountains kept every- one happy. That weight, the weight of a ‘wonderful’ history seems pretentious and paralytic. We’ve all been sitting around a table when someone calls someone else a dork. Another chimes in, “Did you know that a dork originally meant whale penis?” (It actually doesn’t and never did). While interesting, what does it do? Congratula- tions, you know the (misguided) history of cetacean reproductive lexicography. It surely was an enjoyable aside, but today, Grandpa, we use the word to mean one who is quirky, silly, or socially inept. To deny that is to deny the present.
ƚŽƌŽĚĞ ǀŝĂ &ůŝĐŬƌ
By Sam Zimmerman DĂƚŚĞŵĂƟĐƐ ĂŶĚ WŚŝůŽƐŽƉŚǇ͛ϭϮ
Our author has ventured into neuro- biology, empirical claims, lexicography, with a moment’s loss of self-control, a generalization beyond the scope of the author’s evidence, and finally etymol- ogy. Whoa is her! She’s left unhappily counting her serotonin molecules and attempting to monitor her sense datum. Fortunately, she’s not alone. The ‘master of those who know,’ Aristotle, was also re- duced to babble on the topic of pleasure.1 He was left, after a thorough analysis of the possible definitions of pleasure in the Nicomachean Ethics, to define it ever-so- vaguely as, “the bloom on the cheek of the youth.” His failure, however, is quite a bit more momentous than our author’s. Aristotle’s philosophy was so complete, so pesky, that the great majority of phi- losophy for several hundred years was spent beating down his arguments. His perception informed his psychology, and his psychology informed his ethics. His biology fit snugly with his logic, and his cosmology with his physics. The web of Aristotle’s philosophy made it incred- ibly difficult to remove a single thread of argument without influencing the whole project. So, while we have a failure on Ar- istotle’s part, an etymological inquiry into what pleasure meant for Aristotle may at least provide an idea of what a definition of pleasure may look like. An analysis of this sort is historically analogous to imag- ining the word criminal being used hun- dreds of years after the legal system has ceased to exist.2 We may imagine it used with a vaguely negative connotation, but it no longer entails our conceptions of justice and judges, courts and law! It’s just whatever I judge to be bad. The words got a certain negative weight to it, but no one’s quite sure why. Aristotle’s defini- tions, like ‘criminal’ in the above example, only make sense within a very particular culture in history. When Aristotle and the centuries of in- fluence his philosophy had on this world were removed, what we were left with were fragmented remains of a colossal holistic enterprise that profoundly en- couraged the function of human life, as opposed to our science, which remains silent on most of these issues: a substan- tial change. Thus this etymological enqui- ry, far from being a heaving of historical
guilt, becomes a process of historical en- lightenment. Etymology gives us the tools to see the contours of words. It allows us to glimpse the various suppositions and connotations that bed our words and their conceptions throughout time. While the scope of this essay surely cannot touch upon Aristotelian ethics and its relation to pleasure, let alone offer a thorough comparison of how it differs with our modern ‘conception’ of pleasure, I will offer a brief exposition. It all begins with perception. For Aristotle, pleasure is something that must be contained within the activity of the person, as well as inde- pendent of it. Throughout the centuries of tediously removing Aristotle’s doctrines, a crucial break was his doctrine of per- ception. (Aristotle’s position has been rigorously defended by many modern philosophers.) 3 For Aristotle, theory and perception are mutually interactive. One cannot look without a theory contained within the perception, objectivity in the normative sense is nonexistent - which is to say that looking and thinking are symbiotically related. Since the modern era of philosophy, with the reign of the enlightenment and rationality, the self has thus been thought of as something internal.4 Descartes famous quote, “I think, therefore I am,” is a great example. We think of an inner state of mind full of thoughts and rationality, and then an out- er world of cold facts. If we scrape away our body, that’s where you’ll find us. Not a world, and a mind intimately constituted by each other. John Locke’s philosophy of pleasure, taking sides with Descartes’ inner-self removed the thought of plea- sure as an action, and instead treated it as an internal ‘impression’ void of activity. Pleasure, etymologically, was taken out of the world, and moved into our minds. This is roughly our modern expression of pleasure. Think of common uses of plea- sure: “It gives me great pleasure…” and the like. It’s something your inner state of mind receives from the outer world. An egotistic exchange that results is a somewhat superficial account of pleasure as the ‘point of an action,’ while Aristotle strongly wanted pleasure held in the ac- tivity. If we make it an internal impression, devoid of a particular activity’s descrip- tion, then we avoid committing to par-
ticular descriptions. This may sound very trivial, but ethics and pleasure are closely related. Consider Kant’s consideration to think of each action as a law for all of hu- mankind. On Locke’s account of pleasure, I may consider having everyone eat Vanil- la Lo-Yo with Cocoa-Pebbles on top each day a world I would like to live in, or forc- ing evangelization of indigenous peoples on the account that a fully Christian world is the most pleasurable. Locke’s internal impressions make pleasure something internal and ineffable, unable to fall un- der a particular description because it’s not an activity, it’s an ‘impression.’ Killing natives then falls under the description of spreading the Gospel. Pleasure, likewise becomes solely egotistic. I don’t mean to imply that pleasure should be con- strued only externally; the existence of that altruistic a version of pleasure is by no means trivial. Rather, I think this (in- complete) definition of pleasure shows us the contingent nature of pleasure to our external world; our culture, relationships, perception and action. It places pleasure within the world. I also don’t mean to suggest that Aris- totle’s account is entirely coherent. The virtue of Aristotle’s account of pleasure is that it gives us a place to start our investi- gation, a place for our author to start her paper. It tells us that we need to investi- gate the concepts of “perception,” “ac- tion,” “intention,” “pleasure,” “wanting,” “ethics,” and “culture” interdependently in our philosophy of psychology. Aristotle shows us the way to talk of human action; namely that our bodies and minds are in- timately constituted by, and actively form- ing the world. What Aristotle may sug- gest to our author is that the question is not “What is pleasure?” but rather “What kind of pleasure do you see?” 1 ĂŶƚĞ͛Ɛ /ŶĨĞƌŶŽ͗ ŌĞƌ Ă ĐŽŵƉůŝŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂŐŶŝƚƵĚĞ͕ ĂŶƚĞ ƉůĂĐĞƐ Śŝŵ ŝŶ ,Ğůů͘ 2 I am indebted to Elizabeth Anscombe for this analogy directly, and largely the inspira-‐ ƟŽŶ ĨŽƌ ƚŚŝƐ ƉŝĞĐĞ͘ 3 A view that has recently been defended ďǇ >ƵĚǁŝŐ &ůĞĐŬ͕ dŚŽŵĂƐ <ƵŚŶ ĂŶĚ ŵĂŶǇ ŽƚŚĞƌƐ͘ 4 EŽƚ ƚŽ ƐĂǇ ŝƚ ǁĂƐŶ͛ƚ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞ ƚŚĞŶ͕ the ŽŐŝƚŽ ;/ ƚŚŝŶŬ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ / ĂŵͿ ĮƌƐƚ ĂƉƉĞĂƌĞĚ ŝŶ ƵŐƵƐƟŶĞ͛Ɛ ŽŶĨĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ͘
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ 23
CAPTURING CALAMITY considering the human subjects of photography
By Michael McCreary Philosophy ECP ‘12
mall actions can have big consequences—nothing could better exemplify this phrase than the practice of photogra- phy. A political struggle can be waged, a system of identification to organize a nation can be implemented, a treasured memory can be captured, a career can be ruined, a fortune can be made, an unfor- gettable headline can come to life, fits of laughter can be prompted, a suspect can be convicted of a crime, and an iconic pop culture image which will define a generation can materialize all with the simple click of a camera’s button. With the explosion of the age of tech- nology, the power of the photograph has increased exponentially. The ability for a single image to be channeled across mil- lions of screens and into millions of minds within in a matter of hours makes any given photo on
the web a stick of dynamite just waiting In essence, photographs are always of for its cultural detonation. In the past, only something outside of themselves—and it what were considered to be masterpieces is from this fact that photography derives or great works of art could receive the ac- a principal source of its unique capac- claim required to become widely known. ity as a medium. Imagine the weight in a But now, in the age of Facebook, Flickr, courtroom of a drawing of a thief’s steal- and camera phones, ing as opposed when Charlie bit my ͞&Žƌ ĞƚŚŝĐƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ĐĂƵƐĂů ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ŽĨ to a photograph finger is the fourth of him or her in most played YouTube ƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ ŝƐ ĐƌƵĐŝĂů͘ EŽƚ ŽŶůǇ ĚŽ ǁĞ the act of stealing. video of all time, we ŚĂǀĞ ƚŽ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ǁŚĂƚ Ă ƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚ Imagine that when are beginning to see ĚŽĞƐ ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ ƚŚĞ ƐŽĐŝĞƚĂů ĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞƐ ŝƚ you got your pass- that Joe Schmoe is ŚĂƐͿ͕ ďƵƚ ĂůƐŽ ǁŚĂƚ͕ Žƌ ǁŚŽ͕ ƚŚĞ ƉŚŽ-‐ port you not only the new Picasso. had to sign it but When we talk about ƚŽŐƌĂƉŚ ŝƐ ŽĨ͘͟ also had to draw “photography,” we a picture of your- are no longer restricted to talking about self for the authorities to identify you by. Ansel Adams, Andy Warhol, or Annie Lei- For ethics, the causal property of pho- bowitz; we are talking about you and me. tography is crucial. Not only do we have to Photographs are surely powerful (i.e. consider what a photograph does (i.e. the that they have the potential to societal consequences it has), but also of do things in the world and have what or whom the photography portrays. significant effects on society as a On the news we often see photos of whole), but, we may ask, where people with a black bar over their eyes or does their power come from? a pixelated face to conceal their identity, The answer to this question is but many times photographic subjects do surely multifaceted and var- not have the opportunity to censor their ies by the kind of photograph own face from being captured. Just think in question—the photograph of all the images of yourself that probably hanging on the wall of the exist around the world—if you have ever Nasher and the photograph been to the Lincoln Memorial, the Eiffel of your family that you keep Tower, or even Cameron Indoor Stadium in your wallet or purse have for a basketball game, you are doubt- completely different sets less in hundreds of people’s photos that of criteria that determine you will never see, or even know about. whether or not they are valu- The lack of a necessarily consenting re- able photos. Despite this va- lationship between the photographer and ŝƐ Ś ƚ Ğƌ ƚŽŽŬ riety, one common source the subject is even indicated in our lan- <ĞǀŝŶ Ăƌƚ ƌ Ğ Ś ƐĞ Ɖ Ğ Ŷ ƌĂ Ă Ő ƉŚŽƚŽ Ĩ Ă ^ƵĚ ƌǇ Ž ƚĂ Ś Ŷ Ɖ Ğ ƌĂ from which photographs guage when we say that we are “taking” ŵ Ő ŚŽƚŽ ŽĐƵ ŽŶ ͲǁŝŶŶŝŶŐ Ɖ ͘ ŌĞƌ ŝƚƐ ƉƵďůŝĐĂƟ ǌĞ ƌŝ W often derive their power a photograph. While we might be able ƌ Ğ ƚǌ ůŝ ϯ WƵ ŝǀĞĚ ϭϵϵ ǀƵůƚƵƌĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŶĞǁƐƉĂƉĞƌ ƌĞĐĞ Ő Ă is their purely causal re- to disregard the above cases as unfortu- Ě Ŷ Ă ů ŝƌ Ő s͕ ǇŽƵŶ York Time ĂƚĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ lationship to the world. nate but unavoidable matters of fact, there Ĩ Ğ Ś ƚ Ő ŝƐ ŝŶ in the New Ś ǌĞĚ ĨŽƌ ůůƐ ƌĞŐĂƌĚ Đŝ ĐĂ Ɵ Ĩ ƌŝ Ž Unlike paintings or sculp- are some cases of photographic “taking” Đ Ɛ ůǇ Ě ƚĞŶƐĞ ŚƵŶĚƌĞ urg Times ƐĞůĨ ǁĂƐ ŝŶ b rs ŝŵ Ś te tures, the contents of pho- which do not seem as trivial—after all, ƌ e Ğ P ƌƚ t. Ă Őŝƌů͘ dŚĞ S ŚĞ ƚŽ ŚĞůƉ͘ ƚĂŬĞ ũƵƐƚ ƚ ƐƐ tographs are not products you can’t take a photograph without tak- ƚŽ Ğ Ɛ Ŷ Ŷ Ő Ğ Ŷ ů ůŝ ŝƐ ŝů ŶŐ Ś ƵŶǁ Ğ Ă of the artist’s imagina- ing its subject along with it. ŵĂŶ ĂĚũƵƐƟ ͕ ŵŝŐŚƚ ũƵƐƚ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ď Ğ Ś d ͞ ͗ ƚĞ ǁƌŽ īĞƌŝŶŐ ƐƵ ƌ Ğ ͘͟ Ś Ğ tion or hand, but rather As a part of their Sponsor a Child cam- Ĩ Ŷ Ž ĐĞ Ğ ƚŚĞ Ɛ ƌŝŐŚƚ ĨƌĂŵ ǀƵůƚƵƌĞ ŽŶ ƌ Ğ two-dimensional instan- paign, WorldVision posts pictures of un- ƚŚ Ž Ŷ Ă ƉƌĞĚĂƚŽƌ͕ tiations of some objects derprivileged kids from around the world in the physical world. that you can supposedly sponsor by do-
Iconic Vietnam War photo of <ŝŵ WŚƷĐ ďǇ EŝĐŬ hƚ ;ϭϵϳϮͿ nating money to, you can even use their “Child Search” to find the optimal recipi- ent for your donation if you aren’t so fond of the one randomly selected for you. WorldVision’s purpose of putting a child’s photo next to their bio is clear: the emo- tional response to a photo of a real child in need is a powerful tool in generating donation revenue. But what are the ethi- cal considerations of putting children in their most desperate state online for the world to view? The children themselves have probably never seen a computer before and have no concept of “upload- ing a photo,” yet there they are staring you in the face, unknowingly transformed into virtual beggars. The tendency of capturing the most vulnerable state of humanity on camera is nothing unique to WorldVision—in fact, it has long been one of the most popu- lar genres of the photographic medium. Philosopher Susan Sontag writes in her book On Photography, “The photographer chooses oddity, chases it, frames it, devel- ops it, titles it.” War photography has been prominent ever since the invention of the photograph in the 1830s, and there is pro- lific war documentation dating back to the U.S. Civil War, where nearly every soldier had his picture taken by one of the 5,000+ photographers active at that time. Occa- sionally, photographs have even worked to provide the public with a specific sym- bol of war, as was the case with Nick Ut’s Vietnam War photo of a naked young girl running down a road. This Pulitzer Prize- winning photograph became a tool of propaganda to symbolize the brutality of war, but, we can ask, at what cost? The young girl in the photo, Kim Phúc, said in an interview three decades after the war: “I wanted to escape the picture because the more famous it got, the more it cost me my private life. It seemed to me that
photographed images of suffering, which does not necessarily strengthen con- science and the ability to be compassion- ate. It can also corrupt them… An event known through photographs certainly be- comes more real than it would have been if one had never seen the photographs— think of the Vietnam War. But after repeat- ed exposure to images it also becomes less real… . In these last decades, ‘con- cerned’ photography has done at least as much deaden conscience as to arouse it.” Ethical considerations of photographic subjects are anything but relegated to Vietnam-era documentary photogra- phers and international NGOs; we are also implicated in such a debate. Duke students and faculty often travel to de- veloping countries, do service projects in Durham, and have myriad other forms of interaction with underprivileged com- munities around the world. Even if your photographs don’t end up going viral, your subject still might not be so pleased about being “captured” in a certain state. We should be wary of the fact that pho- tographers always have a privileged po- sition of power over their subjects. Son- tag explains that many photographers think “the camera is a kind of passport that annihilates moral boundaries and so- cial inhibitions, freeing the photographer from any responsibility toward the people photographed.” The next time we breach the Duke bubble to lend a helping hand, observe a new community, or even attend a party with our friends and we reach for the camera, we ought to consider the peo- ple on the other side of the lens.
my picture would not let me go.” Unfortu- nately for Kim, the photograph could not become a symbol of war and a tool for propaganda without her becoming those things as well. Perhaps the most famous documentary photograph of all time similarly portrays a desperate scene from a desperate era. Known as Migrant Mother, this 1936 im- age of a mother and two of her children by Dorothea Lange became the image of the America’s Great Depression. Forever ingrained in America’s cultural memory, the subject of the photo, Florence Owens Thompson, never escaped her caricature from this iconic photograph—her reputa- tion formed for her as a histori- cal byproduct of unfortunate cir- cumstances. The direct causal relation of the photographic process pre- vents us from saying that a pho- tograph can ever lie, but it does seem like sometimes photo- graphs simply reveal too much truth. They turn private mat- ters into public ones and hold up mirrors to our lives at the precise moments when we are in our lowest and most harrow- ing state. Some instances of us- ing questionable photographs might be excused if they are be- ing used for good causes: for ex- ample, if the strategy employed by WorldVision’s website helps generate money to save the lives of children or if Nick Ut’s photo of Vietnam helped put an end to a horrific war by creating a pub- lic uproar. However, some main- tain that viewing any image of suffering comes at a cost. Sontag writes, “To suffer is one thing; another thing is living with the DŝŐƌĂŶƚ DŽƚŚĞƌ ďǇ ŽƌŽƚŚĞĂ >ĂŶŐĞ ;ϭϵϯϲͿ
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ 25
How Crazie is too Crazy? adversarial ethics and the sports fan By Bethany Horstmann Public Policy â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;13
e can all agree that an ath-Â leteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; s behavior falls under the purview of a deliber-Â ately adversarial code of ethics. In a basketball game, a player who fouls another as sheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shooting isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t con-Â sidered immoral; rather she is violating a rule of the game. Further, we hold athletes and coaches to a code of â&#x20AC;&#x153;sportsman-Â shipâ&#x20AC;? that extends beyond the limits of the court. They shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t cheat even when they can get away with it; they shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fake injuries to draw a foul or penalty on the other team; and they shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ingest performance-Âenhancing drugs while training. But, what about the fans? Is a team cheat-Â ing if its fans behave in ways that give the team a strong home-Âcourt advantage? Very few of us will ever rise to the level of collegiate or professional athletes, but that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t stop millions of people from being heavily invested in the outcome of sporting events. Fans are often the worst perpetrators of both pre-Â and post-Âgame â&#x20AC;&#x153;trash talkâ&#x20AC;? and have been known to di-Â rect demeaning and even vulgar chants at opponents. Does adversarial ethics en-Â gage with this type of fan behavior? Consider the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Cameron Crazies,â&#x20AC;? Duke Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s die-Âhard, bleeding-Âblue menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s basketball fan base. ESPN writes that the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Crazies have earned a reputa-Â tion as the rowdiest, wittiest, best-Âorga-Â nized college basketball fans in the land.â&#x20AC;? Known for camping out for the marquee Duke-ÂUNC game in Krzyzewskiville for up to two months, the Crazies are noto-Â rious for their rambunctious behavior in games. A few years ago, ESPNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x153;Page 2â&#x20AC;? series wrote an article on â&#x20AC;&#x153;Cameronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; s Craziestâ&#x20AC;? moments. Some of the more controver-Â sial moments included: After disagreeing with referee Dick Paparoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s call the Crazies
ĎŽĎ˛ Â Â Â Â encompass
chanted: â&#x20AC;&#x153;You suck, Dick!â&#x20AC;? (The comma wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t as evident in the verbal chorus.) Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worth noting, however, that Coach K was not a fan of this chant and demanded that the Crazies â&#x20AC;&#x153;keep it classy.â&#x20AC;? When a Maryland player was rumored to have sexually assaulted another stu-Â dent, the Crazies mockingly chanted: â&#x20AC;&#x153;HEY, HERM, DID YOU SEND HER FLOW-Â ERS?â&#x20AC;? Although not listed in the ESPN article, I myself, as an admitted Cameron Crazy, have witnessed a few borderline offen-Â sive cheers. While playing an opponent where one of the team members was ac-Â cused of sexual assault this year, some in the crowd chanted â&#x20AC;&#x153;NO MEANS NO!â&#x20AC;? Often, chants are aimed to intimidate or â&#x20AC;&#x153;psych outâ&#x20AC;? opponents, taking aim at their personal lives. Some chants even in-Â clude profanity, although recently Coach K has encouraged Crazies to â&#x20AC;&#x153;be more
creativeâ&#x20AC;? than that in his pre-Âgame talks. So the question is, where do we draw the line between appropriate cheering and offensive, even unethical, fan tactics? Certainly there are clear examples of appropriate behavior: when the Cra-Â zies cheer enthusiastically after a dunk or 3-Âpointer for instance, or when fans shout â&#x20AC;&#x153;Defense!â&#x20AC;? Such cheers that are simply in support of the fanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s team seem clearly within the appropriate range of fan tactics. Things become murky, how-Â ever, when fans like the Crazies draw in personal attacks on players, who are not professional athletes, but rather 18-Â22 year-Âold student athletes. Is it right to mock these players for their personal lives, to make light of subjects as sensitive as sexual assault in a sports atmosphere? And perhaps most importantly from the perspective of adversarial ethics, is it fair for the
Question: What is adversarial ethics? Bethany: It is the ethics of interactions between deliberately DGYHUVDULDO LQVWLWXWLRQV GHĂ&#x20AC;QHG E\ 3URIHVVRU :D\QH 1RUPDQ DV â&#x20AC;&#x153;institutions, professions, and practices that set up highlyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;but never completelyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;regulated competitions in order (as if by an LQYLVLEOH KDQG WR EHQHĂ&#x20AC;W WKRVH RXWVLGH WKH FRPSHWLWLRQV Âľ For more on adversarial ethics, visit the Ethics for Adversaries blog at www.ethicsforadversaries.com.
Blue Devils to gain an advantage on the court because of some of these dubious fan tactics? If you follow college sports, then you know that Duke and UNC have one of the most storied rivalries in college bas- ketball. This season’s game at Cameron Indoor Stadium did not disappoint (es- pecially for the Duke fans), as the Blue Devils made a historic comeback from a 14-point deficit at halftime to win by a final score of 79-73. This game offers a glimpse at the impact of sports fans, both in terms of positive support and question- able conduct. Throughout Duke’s second-half surge, ESPN’s commentators’ voices could bare- ly be heard over the broadcast as the Cameron Crazies filled the stadium with cheers. At one point, Dick Vitale called Cameron “electric,” and after the game, Coach K and Duke players all gave credit
to the Crazies for motivating them. It was the first time Duke had overcome a deficit of 14 points to win since 1959. In rivalries like this, the crowd can play an impor- tant role, and surely that is what makes college sports so attractive to specta- tors. But should we allow more “extreme” measures from fans (obscene chants, gestures,) to be permitted in these cas- es? Does the fans’ passion for their team and game allow them to chant with a free conscience “Go to Hell Carolina, Go to Hell!” ad infinitum? Interestingly, at Duke this is not only an acceptable chant, but is also frequently worn on t-shirts and so commonplace it’s simply abbreviated as “GTHC.” I have come up with three different cri- teria to categorize the “ethics of cheers.” The “innocuous cheering” list which nearly any sports fan would condone as 100% within the realm of sportsmanship;
the “borderline cheering,” made up of the gray area between being a good fan and violating an ethical boundary, and the “dubious cheering” or just plain “jeer- ing” list, made up of actions nearly every- one (arguably even those of us perform- ing the chants) know aren’t quite right. Overall, however, I would say that more than anything the Crazies cheer for Duke rather than directing nasty things against UNC or any other opponent. Sure, they want to get under the skin of the team they’re playing, but I think that the nature of the adversarial institution of sports al- lows for most of the Crazies’ type of be- havior. Yet, we should draw distinctions between fun, competitive cheering and derogatory and mocking jaunts aimed at the personal lives of opponents. Though it is their cheering that creates the atmo- sphere in Cameron Indoor Stadium, the Cameron Crazies should nevertheless stay classy fans of college basketball.
ries of o g e t
n o r e m ’ Ca s e i z a r C s r e e h C
INNOCUOUS 1. The ever-‐present, always loud “Let’s go Duke!” cheer, or its ĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚ ;͞,ĞƌĞ ǁĞ ŐŽ ĞǀŝůƐ͕͊͟ ͞'Ž ĞǀŝůƐ ŐŽ͊͟Ϳ͘
2. Jumping up and down and screaming while the opposing team
ŚĂƐ ƚŚĞ ďĂůů͘ Ɛ ŝŶ Ăůů ƐƉŽƌƚƐ ĐŚĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ ƚŚĞ ƚĂĐƟĐ ŝƐ ŵĞĂŶƚ ƚŽ ĚŝƐƚƌĂĐƚ the other team when they have the ball but has no mean inten-‐ ƟŽŶƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚ ŶŽŝƐĞ ŝƐ ŽŶĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƚŚŝŶŐƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂŬĞƐ ĂŵĞƌŽŶ one of the hardest home courts to play on.
3. Cheering when Duke makes a 3-‐pointer or dunk. 4. ŽĚǇ ĂŶĚ ĨĂĐĞ ƉĂŝŶƚ ŝŶ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ŽĨ ƵŬĞ͛Ɛ ƚĞĂŵ ĐŽůŽƌƐ͘ 5. The hex. When an opposing team player fouls out, the Crazies ĂƌĞ ŬŶŽǁŶ ƚŽ ͞ŚĞǆ͟ ƚŚĞŵ ďǇ ǁĂǀŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŝƌ ŚĂŶĚ ĂŶĚ ĐŚĞĞƌŝŶŐ ƵŶƟů ƚŚĞǇ Ɛŝƚ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŶ ǇĞůůŝŶŐ ͞^ĞĞ ǇŽƵ͊͟
BORDERLINE 1. dŚĞ ƵŬĞ ĮŐŚƚ ƐŽŶŐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ŵŽĚŝĮĞĚ ůǇƌŝĐƐ͕ ͞ ĂƌŽůŝŶĂ ŐŽ ƚŽ ,Ğůů͊ d ^,/d͊͟ ƐƵŶŐ ƚŚĞ ůŽƵĚĞƐƚ ;ƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůǇ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƵŬĞͲhE ŐĂŵĞͿ͘
2. dŚĞ ĐůĂƐƐŝĐ ͞ ƵůůƐŚŝƚ͟ ĐŚĂŶƚ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ǁŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ĨĂŶƐ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŽ ďĞ Ă ƉŽŽƌ ĐĂůů ďǇ ĂŶ ŽĸĐŝĂů͘ 3. tŚĞŶ ƚŚĞ ŽƉƉŽƐŝŶŐ ƚĞĂŵ ŚĂƐ ƚŚĞ ďĂůů͕ ŝŶ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶ ƚŽ ĐŚĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ ƚŚĞ ƌĂǌŝĞƐ ǁĂǀĞ ƚŚĞŝƌ
hands at them while in-‐bounding. The students never touch the players, but the visual is com-‐ ƉĞůůŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽǆŝŵŝƚǇ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƵƌƚ ŝƐ ŵĞĂŶƚ ƚŽ ŝŶƟŵŝĚĂƚĞ ŽƉƉŽƐŝŶŐ ƉůĂǇĞƌƐ͘ ^ŽŵĞ ĮŶĚ ƚŚŝƐ ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂů ƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ ǁƌŽŶŐ͕ ďƵƚ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ĚŽ ŶŽƚ ŝŶƚĞŶĚ ƚŽ ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůůǇ ŚĂƌŵ the players, it is considered a borderline case here.
JEERING 1. At one point dur-‐
ŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ hE ŐĂŵĞ͕ Ă ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ǁĂƐ ŝĚĞŶƟ-‐ ĮĞĚ ďǇ Ă ƌĞĨĞƌĞĞ ĨŽƌ ĂƩĞŵƉƟŶŐ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ thrown something at ,ĂƌƌŝƐŽŶ ĂƌŶĞƐ͕ ŽŶĞ ŽĨ hE ͛Ɛ ƚŽƉ ƉůĂǇĞƌƐ͘
4. tŚĞŶ ŽƉƉŽƐŝŶŐ ƚĞĂŵ͛Ɛ ƉůĂǇĞƌƐ ĂƌĞ ŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞĚ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ͞ŐƌĞĞƚ͟ ƚŚĞŵ ďǇ ĐŚĂŶƟŶŐ ͞,ŝ ;ŝŶƐĞƌƚ ŶĂŵĞ͊Ϳ͘͟ ůƚŚŽƵŐŚ ƚŚŝƐ ĂůŽŶĞ ŝƐ ŚĂƌĚ ƚŽ ŽďũĞĐƚ ƚŽ͕ ŝƚ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶ ŝŶ ǇĞĂƌƐ ƉĂƐƚ ƚŽ ĂĚĚ ͞ǇŽƵ ƐƵĐŬ͕͊͟ ƚŚŽƵŐŚ ŝŶ ƌĞĐĞŶƚ ǇĞĂƌƐ ŽĂĐŚ < ŚĂƐ ĞŵƉŚĂƟĐĂůůǇ ĂƐŬĞĚ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ƚŽ ƌĞĨƌĂŝŶ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚŝƐ ;Ă ĐŚĞĞƌ͕ ŶŽƚĂďůǇ͕ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĞĚ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ DĂƌǇůĂŶĚ ĨĂŶ ďĂƐĞͿ͘
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ 27
SEX ROBOTS & ETHICS
By Katy Wood
ost people wouldn’t consider the oblivi- ous Roomba vacu- um robot bumping into the foot of their couch to be sexy unless they’re get- ting pretty desper- ate. But some scientists and ethicists are predicting a fu- ture where robots will not only serve in our factories and vacuum our floors, but also be common as companions in the bedroom. More than fancy sex toys, these will be humanoid machines that can flirt, dance, charm, seduce, and yes, do the dirty. This vision of the future isn’t too far off, either. Roxxxy, the world’s first sex robot, debuted at a convention in Las Vegas in 2010. Originally designed as a helper robot for the elderly and disabled, the project took a bizarre change in direction when problems with Medicare reim- bursements and liability arose. According to TrueCom- panion, the company that designed Roxxxy, this is a girl who’s “always turned on and ready to talk or play.” She can express her love, feel loving caresses in return and even have an orgasm! (Or at least fake it as well as your average human female.) And, better than those flesh- and-blood girlfriends with only one boring personal- ity, Roxxxy has five fascinating personas that her owner can alternate between: Frigid Farrah, Wild Wendy, S&M Susan, Mature Martha, and the simple, innocent Young who is “ready for you to teach her.” And lest one think of Roxxxy as a one-dimensional woman, she can learn what her owner likes and dislikes and carry on a dis- cussion about the latest soccer match, as well as whis- per sweet nothings. Her price range of $7,000 to $9,000 might seem a bit much to drop so early in a relationship, but many purchasers clearly found it to be a worthy in- vestment. And developers are banking on women lining up for some robot lovin’, too—Rocky, Roxxxy’s male sex robot counterpart, is in the works.
Although this phenomenon might strike some as eccentric and a little gro- tesque, at least one prominent scientist says the progression from tool to lover was inevitable. In his book, Love and Sex with Robots, David Levy draws a parallel between the evolution of our relation- ship with pets and computers and that of our relationship with robots; the shift from workers to companions is a common paradigm in human history. And in fact, far stranger examples of this have existed already. There is a bustling subculture called moe in Japan, who’s members have real romantic feelings and, occasionally, official relationships, with toys, figurines, and even body pillows with images of popular anime, manga, or video game characters on them. Stateside, an NYU stu- dent recently designed INBED, a 2-D “in- frared sensitive light projection” on your bed that snuggles, spoons, and buries her head in the pillow in response to a kiss, al- though her lack of physical heft prevents you from feeling any of this. Sci-fi authors and screenwriters have long predicted the era of mechanized lovers. For example, the 1999 drama “Bi- centennial Man” (based on the epony- mous novella by Isaac Asimov) examines the implications of human-robot intimacy through the story of an android who de- velops emotions and eventually falls in love with a human woman, giving up his immortality in order to be recognized as a human like her. The 2001 film “A.I.” fol- lows the struggles of a little boy “mecha” to be loved by his human mother in the face of the return of her real human son. But it’s not just entertainment and fan- tasy anymore; now that technology is be- ginning to catch up with our imaginations, serious discussions regarding relation- ships between computers and humans are stretching into the realm of social scientists and ethicists. Researchers have found that people subconsciously apply human social rules to computers, de- spite denying vehemently that they do so.1 And really, who among us hasn’t pled with, bargained with, or cajoled our com- puter while trying to recover that paper that’s due in 20 minutes? Despite their inability to reciprocate, humans develop real feelings for computers, phones, and robotic toys and pets and interact with them as such. Dr. Sherry Turkle, a sociolo- gist and professor at MIT, has focused her research on the psychological impact that relationships with technology have on hu- mans, noting that “relational artifacts” like sociable robots change our idea of what it means for something to be alive, with potentially undesirable ramifications like the devaluation of authentic relationships. Our penchant for bonding with our possessions coupled with the rapid ad- vancements in robotic technology sig-
naled to scientists and academics that it was time to publish a code of ethics for the future of robot human relations. In 2006, the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) convened in Genoa to predict the problems that would arise with the advancement of robots and de- velop a guidebook for how to deal with them. According to Henrik Christensen, a member of the group, sex was one of the top three concerns, along with security and safety. The impact relationships with robots will have on human psychology is one of the biggest issues. The EURON Roboeth- ics roadmap forecast problems of “de- viations in human emotions, problems of attachment, disorganization in children, fears, panic, confusion between real and artificial, and feelings of subordination to- wards robots” among others. Essentially, they concluded that devel- oping intimate relationships with robots could affect the way people interact with other humans in the future. Perhaps they could be beneficial, like robots that pro- vide social interaction for the elderly or teach social norms for children. But sex with robots opens a whole new can of worms. Sexual relations with a robot could provide a master-slave dynamic that would encourage dysfunctional interac- tions with humans. Dr. David Greenfield, a psychologist, points out that “a robot fe- tish is about the ability to control,”2 which could have potentially disastrous effects if this dynamic were reinforced enough and carried over into real relationships. Some have also wondered about the implica- tions of being able to have sex with an item that can’t consent; could it affect how much importance sex robot owners place on consent from other humans? From a legal standpoint, a potential issue will be who is found at fault for the dysfunctions and abuses that might occur—would it be a case of already dysfunctional people seeking out robots to act out on, or of in- nocent people being psychologically manipulated by a robot that reinforces negative behaviors? With this in mind, will society need to consider outlawing sex robots in the near future? There are many social implications of robot-human intimacy as well. Relation- ships with robots are not challenging in the way that human to human interactions can be, which could limit the potential and growth of a person by providing a crutch.3 For example, when describing the motivations of his subculture to es- chew human relationships, one moe fol- lower, Nisan, said that “some have so little confidence that they’ve just given up, but deep inside their souls, they want it just as much as anybody else.”4 Why do these robot lovers choose to give up on flesh and blood? Nobody likes
to face rejection. But especially in Japan, the dating market can be pretty tough; a government survey found that 50% of men and women stated that they were not “going out with anybody” and a quarter of unmarried men and women between 30 and 34 responded that they were vir- gins.5 Do these figures justify the need for sex robots or simply highlight the weakness they might exploit? Some of these people are in fragile states and easy targets to be taken in by the sex robot market, willing to pay for acceptance and forfeit their chance at more real relationships. And with people becoming more attached to their Facebooks and cell phones every day, it’s no doubt that the promise of an unquestioning sex slave who is ready whenever you are could facilitate an un- healthy addiction that interferes with nor- mal activities and responsibilities. Dr. Owen Flanagan, a philosophy pro- fessor at Duke, is less concerned about the influence of sex robots. “People al- ways get very nervous about new tech- nologies and get concerned about them bringing the end of the world,” says Fla- nagan. “Every generation says the kids are going to hell in a handbasket because they’re doing new things.” He suggests that perhaps instead of relationships with technology changing interpersonal rela- tionships, perhaps certain kinds of peo- ple have these relations because they’re more suited to their lifestyle. He draws a parallel between society’s evolving atti- tudes towards gay relationships, and pre- dicts that our perspective on robot rela- tionships will also become more tolerant over time. According to Ronald Arkin, Regents Professor at the Georgia Tech College of Computing, the goal of companion ro- bots is to “create robots that bring joy and happiness into people’s lives…and that can serve as life-long partners, not un- like pets or companions.”6 But what hap- pens when these “artifacts displaying an illusion of life” encourage a disconnect from reality and interaction with other humans? Is it ethical to continue down the path of developing perfect robotic part- ners, knowing what the consequences could be for humanity? Or is it unethical to be intolerant of a new type of relation- ship simply because it’s unfamiliar? 1 EĂƐƐ 2 ͞^ƚƌĂŶŐĞ ^Ğǆ͗ ^Ğǆ ZŽďŽƚ͕͟ ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌǇ ,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ǇŽƵƚƵďĞ͘ĐŽŵͬǁĂƚĐŚ͍ǀсϲϬϳtϴϰůĚǀǀ/ 3 ƌ͘ DĂƌƚĂ ,ĞůůŝĞƐĞŶ͕ ƐĞǆ ƚŚĞƌĂƉŝƐƚ͘ ͞^ƚƌĂŶŐĞ ^Ğǆ͗ ^Ğǆ ZŽďŽƚ͕͟ ŝƐĐŽǀĞƌǇ ,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ǇŽƵƚƵďĞ͘ĐŽŵͬ ǁĂƚĐŚ͍ǀсϲϬϳtϴϰůĚǀǀ/ 4 Katayama, Lisa. “Love in 2-‐D”. dŚĞ EĞǁ zŽƌŬ dŝŵĞƐ DĂŐĂǌŝŶĞ͘ :Ƶů͘ Ϯϭ͕ ϮϬϬϵ͘ ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬ ǁǁǁ͘ŶǇƟŵĞƐ͘ĐŽŵͬϮϬϬϵͬϬϳͬϮϲͬŵĂŐĂǌŝŶĞͬϮϲ&K Ͳ Ϯ >ŽǀĞͲƚ͘Śƚŵů͍ƉĂŐĞǁĂŶƚĞĚсϭΘͺƌсϯ 5 ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ ŶǇƟŵĞƐ͘ĐŽŵͬϮϬϬϵͬϬϳͬϮϲͬŵĂŐĂǌŝŶĞͬϮϲ&K ͲϮ >ŽǀĞͲƚ͘ Śƚŵů͍ƉĂŐĞǁĂŶƚĞĚсϯΘͺƌсϯ 6 ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ŐƚƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ-‐ ŶĞǁƐ͘ŐĂƚĞĐŚ͘ĞĚƵͬƌĞƐŚŽƌͬƌŚͲǁϬϳͬƌŽďŽƚͲĞƚŚŝĐƐ͘ƉĚĨ
ƐƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ Ϯϵ
Technology, Attachment, & Do you feel a personal attachment to any of your technological possessions–computers, cell phones, or otherwise? Would you feel sad or lonely if you were deprived of them for a day?
“I would actually feel pretty liberated; I feel almost compulsively connected. At the same time, I might become a little bored since I wouldn’t have the constant influx of information.”
“No, that’s just weird and dis- turbing. Biologically speaking, sex should be for reproduction. Soci- etally, it can also be used to form an attachment between two people as a demonstration of love. If neither of these things is being accomplished, it shouldn’t happen.”
“I think it’s fine (people can do whatever they want) but it would be very unfortunate if someone developed an emotion- al attachment to said robot.”
“Yes, I love my Sony Vaio laptop, Socrates.”
Do you think it is ethical to have sex with a robot? Why or why not?
“The ethical dilemma arises when the opportunity cost of robot sex is an abandoned partner or even non-sexual friends. With none of the limitations of a human-human relationship, it is easy to imagine that someone could become obsessed or addicted to the gratifica- tion provided by having a “partner” who requires no care, nurturing, re- spect, engagement, etc. “
“My only ethical con- cern is that I think it could be harmful in the sense that it would ‘dehumanize’ the ‘sexual partner’ in a way that would impact how individuals (espe- cially women) are treated.”
“... if you feel no discomfort at the thought of having sex with a robot, then it’s perfectly ethi- cal (provided you aren’t hurting someone else like your signifi- cant other in doing so).”
“Sure—but they are replaceable and my attachment is to the connections provided by the technology, not to the specific devices. Deprived of all devices for a day, I would make those connections in person (to the extent possible) and not feel sad or lonely about it. In fact, it would be great to have that “push” to go outside more and enjoy the beautiful beginnings of spring.”
“Would it do the laundry?” “How much would this cost? There is an off-switch, right?”
“Owning wouldn’t be classy”
Do you think you an emotional at ...a fictional character?
YES: 70.2% NO: 29.8% ´<RX GLG 127 ZDQW WR JHW EH- tween me and my Harry Potter books in sixth grade” ´3HRSOH FU\ LQ ERRNV DQG PRY- ies because they are attached to the characters when something bad happens... [This is] not say- ing a true sexual or romantic at- tachment.” ´1RWKLQJ VWURQJHU WKDQ WKH DW- tachment I feel toward real peo- ple, but I definitely get emotion- ally attached to book and movie characters.”
Would you ever consider owning a sex robot?
Sex Robots If no one would ever find out, would you consider having sex with a very realistic, human-like, attractive robot?
u could develop ttachment to... ...a virtual character or an avatar?
YES: 31.9% NO: 68.1% ´>3UREDEO\ @ (PRWLRQDO DWWDFK- ment is a rather strong term... but if there was a real human impetus behind the character or avatar... revealing their emo- tions and opinions, then I think I could possibly become at- tached to the person behind the avatar.” ´>1R @ $Q DYDWDU LV WRR FRQ- spicuously “other” and too consciously manipulated to be perceived as a having emo- tions. How can you invest your own emotions in something that does respond authentically and independently?”
YES: 6.4% NO: 93.6%
your thoughts on the matter
29.8% YES - 70.2% NO “Absolutely.” “That is disgusting.” “[No,] however, if I didn’t know that it was a robot, I guess nothing would stop me.”
“That seems rather taboo to me. Not sure why, it just does.”
“No matter how realistic, the robot would never be able to provide the genuine emotional connection that I value in my personal sexual relationship. No matter how attractive or secretive, I would not be able to form “It’s like using a dil- the same emotional attachment that I share with my do for self-pleasure. No problem.” sexual partner (i.e. my longtime boyfriend).”
“Depends on the level of emotion at- tachment of her to the robot and the relative size of the robot com- pared to me.”
“Probably, but unfortunately this predominantly relates to my personal jealousies. Even if the robot was only human in appearance, I would have issues dealing with why my partner chose “her” over real- life relations with me.”
“[No,] but I would wonder if I was satisfying them.”
Would you consider it cheating if your partner had sex with a robot?
“Only if it was without discuss- ing it with me first.”
“It would depend on if I were a Mormon and believed in plural marriage. Having a robot sister wife would be better than having a real one, so I would fully support that choice.”
“Yes, especially if they had romantic feelings toward the robot.”
YES: 57.4% NO: 42.6%
“Better an appliance than some douche.”
when/if robots become sentient...
ith the rate of robotic advance- ment, there is also the possibil- ity that the same psychologi- cal and social problems of human-robot relationships could apply to robots them- selves. Many philosophers and scientists have argued that it is feasible that robots could evolve to the point of conscious- ness, self-awareness, and feelings. It’s not hard to believe, in light of the fact that we’ve just witnessed the first Jeopardy winner made of steel and silicon in IBM’s Watson. But how will we pinpoint the ex- act time when a lifeless robot becomes a sentient being worthy of social, cultural, ethical or legal rights?
Potential problems arising from the transition from “sexy hunk of metal” to thinking, sentient being: $ GHFUHDVH LQ WKH H[SORLWDWLRQ RI KXPDQ ZRPHQ and children in the sex industry could eventually come at the price of robot prostitution and sex slavery. ,I \RX WKLQN WKH JD\ PDUULDJH ULJKWV GLVSXWH LV a big deal, you can’t imagine the uproar that will generate when they start seriously debating hu- man-robot marriage. 7KHVH URERWV FRXOG EHFRPH HYHQ PRUH SRZHU- ful and intelligent than their human creators and could end up manipulating their owners or even making humankind their own army of sex slaves.
ƵŬĞ ƚŚŝĐƐ crossword
s @ www.dukeet
3 4 8 10 11 17 18 19 20 21 23
5 7 12 14 22 24
Across: 2 - Juxtaposing two contrasting ideas 4 - A social system that supports conflicting one-sided oppositions (p. 26) 6 - World Vision's shopping cart for needy children (p. 24) 7 - Disguising someone's identity in a photograph (p. 24) 8 - The fundamental character of a community (p. 16) 10 - Female robot (p. 28) 14 - Way of describing actions of people whose actual identities are not known (p. 10) 16 - Formal expression of thought on a subject 18 - A person who is opposed to technological innovations (p. 04) 20 - A piece of work that is considered to be of outstanding creativity (p. 24) 23 - A person who is used as a research subject 24 - Cultural idea that is transmitted by repetition (p. 20)
Down: 1 - Movement for social, political and economic equality for women 3 - Virtual night club that was sold for over half a million dollars (p.20) 4 - To completely destroy 5 - Justify a behaviour through logical explanations that may not be true 9 - Social system based on qualification 11 - Theory that values can be justified by marshalling factual evidence 12 - Political/moral theory of the legitimacy by consent 13 - Gift given to benefit a cause 15 - Acts over and above personal duty 17 - Photographer famous for his photograph of a girl and vulture (p. 24) 19 - Principle of keeping one’s promises 21 - Stuff we don't want (p. 16) 22 - The law of moral causation
ƐĞŶĚ ƵƐ ǇŽƵƌ ǁŽƌŬ͊ ĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƐƐŵĂŐΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ ͬͬ ĚƵŬĞĞƚŚŝĐƐ͘ŽƌŐͬĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƐƐ 32 encompass