Humanity 2.0 | Winter Edition 2018/19

IN THIS WINTER EDITION:

BEYOND GADGETS AND HUMANITY FROM MUCH OF TODAY TOMORROW MORE!

TEAM head: Simon Pompé co-head: Michael Keith editing supervisor: Ella Goemans art director: Steff Nagel journalists (in alphabetical order):

B. Allen Chirine Chalak Kodie Chontos Ceren Cingi Dan Edwards Ella Goemans Julia Hönnecke Greta Koch Matthijs Lenaerts Mowgli Legein Gaia Lisi Caroline Lurz Nadine Meertens Steff Nagel Kavya Narayanan Amelie Ohler Mia Penn Charlie Pion Simon Pompé Samantha Scarpa Ferraglio

Marie-Sophie Silan Stella Theocharidou cover: Steff Nagel

Winter Edition Copyrighted 2018

2

each new edition of the Maastricht Diplomat this year will have a part of the map of Maastricht, collect them all to complete the set!

North Maastricht

1

Simon’s note

EDITORIAL

Here it is, the first printed Maastricht Diplomat journal of the academic year 2018-19! I hope you cosy up over it with a cup of Maastricht’s amazing coffee or in the comfort of your festive homes.

2018 has been a crazy year for the world and Europe, especially for young people. Fifty years after the mythical year 1968, Europe has once again seen a series of meaningful, disruptive protests all over the continent. The political landscape is in turmoil; local and international crises shake up the very foundations of the post-Cold War world order. The climate is ever-worsening, and the social revolution through feminism, human rights activism and democratic or authoritarian movements strides forward. There is no doubt the world is changing fundamentally. When historians will look back to 2018, they will likely call it “the age of transition”; when new ideas clashed with old structures. But towards which future are we progressing? Is it progress, even?

In this Winter Edition, our writers reflect on what human society, politics and art may look like in an upgraded version. Will the bugs be patched? What new issues will arise? Will tomorrow be a better world, or will we be worse-off? And who will be the judge of that?

Undoubtedly, the technological revolution will be decisive in shaping our lives.

Therefore, you will find articles on big data, the online world, killer robots, curious artificial minds and mechanical philosophers. But just as our machines are developing, so are our bodies, through smart drugs or enhancements in sports.

Will they become integral parts of what it means to be human?

Young people will be the prime targets, actors and influencers of tomorrow’s world. As a journal for student opinions, we think that students’ input and concerns should be heard and discussed. We hope we can make our case in this Winter Edition.

If you like what you read here, and you do not want to wait until the Spring Edition, head over to our website www.diplomat.unsamaastricht.org to follow our online publication, where we publish regularly on political, cultural and student-related issues. If you’re done reading this copy, feel free to hand it over to your friends and spread the word.

Happy Reading!

4 6 8

10 12 14

A Class Odyssey: Can robots replace humans in education?

22

Beyond Human: what does it mean to be posthuman?

24

Will Digital Kill Charity?:

Better learning; interview with students and professor.

world and new world sports?

27

Crossword Puzzle

Crowdfunding is becoming

Try to answer the questions

more popular than charities.

by reading the articles

Thanks for the Privacy:

28

Silence:

WhatsApp has become an

Three threats global journal-

issue in Brazilian elections.

ism faces.

Ethical Cars:

30

Social Media:

Two people discuss the

A cause for social isolation,

future of self-driving cars.

or a benevolent addiction?

Masturbation 2.0:

32

Curiosity: How curiosity teaches us to live with technology.

34

Soldiers of Tomorrow:

again.

20

More Than a Number: where to draw a line for old

sex will never be the same

17

Smart Drugs:

2.0°?: Can we find solutions to

New robots may become the

man-made global warming?

future weapons in warfare.

Obliviate!: How fragile is the human memory?

3

E D U C AT I O N

Stella Theocharidou

a class odyssey

A 4

few weeks ago, the world learnt about the first robot to complete a college course, who also happened to co-teach a university level class. This sounds like something straight out of a Black Mirror episode, doesn’t it? Alas, her name is Bina48, and she was part of an experiment conducted by U.S. Military Academy of West Point in New York.

And if that is not surprising enough, the courses Bina48 covered were an introduction to Ethics Philosophy course, covering “Just-War Theory” and “Ethical Reasoning”. Fascinating yet quite scary, isn’t it?

Robots teaching classes is not something new, as there have been cases where bots taught English, Technology and other subjects in elementary schools

in Finland, Japan, and South Korea in the last decade or so. South Korea even suggested they should introduce around 830 of these types of robots in preschools all around the country. BumJae You, head of the Cognitive Robotics Center at KIST, the Korean Institute of Science and Technology, in an interview with CNN explained that, the children “feel the robot is their friend” and that

“In psychology there is a theory of pessimistic self-fulfilling prophecies, which are often an attempt to guard one’s self from disappointment or failure.

these robots “are very helpful with Odyssey” who controls the spaceship spectators, need to question this, and see enhancing the concentration capability and seems to have a “mind” of its own. if it’s just anxiety or if it’s just a possible of the children in class”.

When one of the crew members tries to outcome.

Nevertheless, researchers have stated shut down the AI so that they can man- Having a robot helper doing the that these robots cannot yet replace ually fix the problem that occurred on “heavy work” might sound like a good human teachers in the classroom the ship, HAL 9000 simply replies with solution, and it partly is because it gives because of the limited robotic technol- “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do teachers the space and time to think outogy that exists. But that was back in that”. The AI’s reason for this was that side the box and be more interactive with 2010. How have things changed since the mission was too important to allow their students. Moreover, it gives chilthen? Do people have the same vision the humans to jeopardize it. HAL 9000’s dren immense technological knowledge, in 2018? capability of speech, facial recognition, but scientists should consider the impact Intellectuals like Sir Anthony Seldon, interpreting emotional behaviors and these robots will have on the emotional Vice Chancellor of the University of playing a game of chess seemed only development of children and how they Buckingham, express their concerns a work of fantasy created to satisfy the are going to influence their empathetic about intelligent machines and how they needs of people for a villain with the tendencies. Not to promote pessimistic are going to change traditional academic “face” of a machine. self-fulfilling prophecies, but we already teaching, let alone our whole lives. Yet, In psychology there is a theory of pes- see children who, being raised with no Sir Anthony Seldon, having talked to simistic self-fulfilling prophecies, which one to teach them the simplest thing as the Telegraph, explains that these robots, are often an attempt to guard one’s self being kind to one another, tend to have having been given the appropriate algo- from disappointment or failure. A sim- no empathy at all. Is that really what we rithms, will be able to know exactly ple example of this is when one believes want for them? what the individual student needs, and they will have a bad day and happen to Furthermore, scientists should also how much they can be challenged. This trigger a fight with someone and then remember that total control over is something that we don’t usually see something else bad happens, and in the machines might not always be possible. in schools, where only a few teachers end, they do have a bad day. In this case, Movies and TV shows may exaggerate focus on each student’s capabilities, a lot of philosophers, amongst others, and portray technology as the Devil but and where students are being taught in since the early times of technology have in all fairness, nobody wants to end up a specific way collectively, because the been criticizing it and what it will do for in a Black Mirror episode. system focuses on the mass instead of humans. They have created this horrific the individual. image of technological advancements This alone makes people who enjoy meant to help the humans, but we, as the adventures of the literary nature or, more specifically, the science fiction realm, think back to HAL 9000, the AI system in Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space

Humanity: How to be human

Whatis a human? Featherless biped!

Made from flesh

HUMANISM

The gods were invited to a banquet by King Tantalus. Who had devised a plan to trick them into eating human flesh.

To do this he killed and roasted his own son, Pelops, to serve him to the gods. The gods saw through this trickery though and refused to eat. However, one of the gods, Demeter, who was distracted picked at the food, thereby eating the boy’s left shoulder. When Zeus realised what Tantalus had done, he put Pelops back together.

However, he was missing his left shoulder, to rectify her mistake Demeter had him carved an ivory shoulder to replace the one that he had lost.

Starting with the story of Pelops is to illustrate one of the first and best-known stories of someone with a prosthetic.

Someone with an enhanced non-natural body, who went on in life to accomplish great things. We already know his story, but what about our own?

This edition of the Maastricht Diplomat is looking at exactly this question, where are we as humans going, what does the future of humanity hold?

Before we can answer this question, we need to first know whether our current concept of humanity still holds. In a world that is changing as quickly as ours is today, does it still make sense to hold on to one set-in-stone idea of

Nadine Meertens

what we mean with ‘human’.

Explaining the philosophical movements of posthumanism and transhumanism will help shed some light on how our concept of humanity should be re-evaluated and possibly even changed in the future.

Both of these philosophical movements evolve around the notion of the posthuman, the exact way in which they approach and define this is somewhat different though.

But they do have one thing in common which is that the concept of human is open for change. We as people have evolved over time and changed, and this change is still possible in the future. What exactly we want this change to be is the question they are posing.

Transhumanism is centred around a very commonly held goal in society today: human enhancement. The idea of human enhancement is rooted in some core enlightenment values: progress and rationality.

An important distinction this movement makes is that, as of right now, most of us are still human. But not all of us. Some of us already fall under the stage of transhuman. Where exactly this stage begins, and ends, depends on who exactly you are reading. But to simplify it, transhuman is if the body is enhanced beyond our natural abilities. This would mean that anyone with a pacemaker or other forms of prosthetics is

BEYOND HUMAN exploration of the posthuman 6

already transhuman, or close to becoming transhuman. Making Pelops a very early example of someone becoming transhuman. This idea of prosthetics as making a man partly a machine is not a foreign notion, think for example of cyborg movies like Robocop and Terminator.

Especially the field of genetical engineering is moving into this area of philosophy, take Planet of the Apes for example. In the Rise of the Planet of the Apes we see how genetic manipulation has enhanced the ape’s cognitive abilities, giving them the opportunity to take over the earth. This story might be far-fetched, but this idea of genetic enhancements is something scientists are actually already capable of doing. Using a technique called CRISPR, scientists can edit genomes. This can of course be applied in many different ways, but one specific application we often hear about is ‘designer babies’.

This means that parents would be able to design their baby to their own or society’s liking, so basically the plotline of Gattaca is closing in on us. Whether this new technology will bring about a utopia or dystopia is debatable, think for example also of a novel like A Brave New World where it is seen in a more negative light.

But this new technology of CRISPR also promises great potential in the prevention and even elimination of diseases.

The movement of transhumanism even has a picture of a future beyond this idea of a transhuman, namely, when we reach the stage of posthuman. This would be an entity that goes beyond the notion of human or machine, it would be both and also neither. One familiar example is the idea of mind uploading. This is the idea that a human mind is uploaded to a computer, thereby basically rendering the human immortal. Examples in movies and series are countless. A few of the headliners are: Star Trek, Stargate, Limitless (the series), Self/less, Transcendence, Tron and for the marvel fans amongst us: Captain America, The Winter Soldier.

Another movement looking at the concept of the posthuman is the movement of Posthumanism itself. This movement holds that the notion of human we have today is flawed. This movement shows us that there are a few key problems in today’s notion of the human.

The first being the anthropocentrism inherent in our definition of human.

Meaning they way in which the human tends to be the centre of the discussion,

which could lead to speciesism. The basic idea is that in order to deal with issues like climate change and mass extinction of animals we have to decentralise the human from the discourse. Our actions impact all species living on this planet, not just the one we belong to.

The second problem in our current notion of the human is the idealism in the way it is mentioned as one homogenous entity. The idea that we are all equal is something most of us strive towards. It is an ideal a significant amount of people believe in and wish to accomplish in reality. But in application this is sadly not yet something we have achieved. Historically the notion of the human, or anthropos, has not always applied to all of humankind equally. It has always had an exclusivist nature, some were considered to be more human than others. Think for example of slavery, women, races, ethnicity, nationality, dis/ability, and much more. An example for this can be found in the Blade Runner movie from 1984. This movie projects an image of the future in which robots are evolving. A company is creating so called ‘replicants’, machines that resemble humans in many ways. These replicants were hard to distinguish from humans because they looked the same, had intelligence and often were even given memories. The company ran into some trouble when the machines started asking questions about who they were and if they were human. In the second movie questions arose whether the label of human also applied to them, or at least the label of alive. Because when these replicants did things that were considered illegal they were ‘retired’, or should we say killed?

We created them to look like humans with

intelligence and human memories but then went on to exclude them from being human, or even alive.

Thirdly, this movement deals with the problem of dualisms. Like the previous two things already showed we have a tendency to define our identity is separation to others. We speak and think in dualisms, such as human vs animal and more in the tradition of dystopias even artificial intelligence vs humans. This duality leaves out the interconnectivity, relationality and co-existence of things in reality. For example, one might hold the existence of an organic body as one of the factors defining humanity. This would clear things up for a situation like Westworld, were the hosts are indeed robots. But then someone with a pacemaker, who cannot survive without it might also fall through the cracks as not being truly human. Especially in a time of technological advancement in the field of human enhancement and biological engineering, the categories become more interconnected and harder to differentiate.

Posthumanism - after having recognised these issues - believes the way forward is a different approach. We can already become posthuman, by embracing a new idea of a (post-) humanity that emphasises the interconnectedness of things and takes away the contested idea of the human.

Instead a more fluid, open notion of what exactly we should see as being human is offered. Which leaves possibility for new inventions and technologies to come to impact and change the way we view ourselves. This movement is asking us to re-evaluate and be critical of our use of this term ‘human’.

The movements of transhumanism and posthumanism show us the need for a re-evaluation of the notion of human, using the concept of the ‘posthuman’. Transhumanism saw stages in the progression of humankind towards a posthuman machine human hybrid.

Postmodernism, instead deconstructs the notion of the human, by looking at some of its issues. We still cannot know what our future holds, but we should have an understanding of being human that makes sure not to exclude all the technological or biological enhancements to come. Nor exclude anyone part machine, part human, like Pelops, Iron Man, or Luke Skywalker himself.

7

WILL DIGITAL KILL THE CHARITY STAR? Matthijs Lenaerts

I

magery of a jolly, red-cloaked CocaCola commercial has started clogging up store fronts across the world, signalling the return of the yearly season of gifts. I don’t just mean those last-minute panic buys we belatedly remember to drop under the tree for our least favourite siblings (socks in my case; a classic), but also the gifts that, for many charities, make up a large part of their total donations each year. But just as your parents worryingly glance at you Instagramming everything on the table, so do charities worry that their donors might be looking too much at another internet phenomenon: crowdfunding.

For years, households have given to big name charities that were instantly recognisable to all. From WWF’s Panda to Plan International, as soon as the logo appeared, you knew your support would do its part in making the world that little bit better.

That same world has changed, and brand power is no longer what it used to be. With the rise of influencers and viral campaigns also came the emergence of a new force in charity with the likes of GoFundMe and Indiegogo giving hundreds of causes access to a global audience of Samaritans who’d otherwise be none the wiser of some of these projects.

At a glance, this sounds like a straight

8

win. What kind of Grinch writes an article complaining about making charities more accessible, right? Fair point. There are indeed a lot of upsides to this novel take on gathering donations. Due to the way online crowdfunding campaigns spread, they engage potential donors more directly than traditional set-ups. Many who donate hear about some cause or another through someone within their circle inviting them to take part. Beats handing your money to a largely faceless organisation that promises you your money will “definitely” reach its intended target. Not only do people establish a stronger connection to these causes this way but with the projects proliferating online running the gamut, from paying for underfunded school music programs to building water wells in South Sudanese villages, you can shop around for whatever cause you identify most strongly with. No middleman, endless choice and way easier to use, effectively shortening the path for many to give to charity when they previously might not have. Research by the State University of New York has even revealed that impulse “buying” is commonplace on crowdfunding sites.

Do not worry if by now you are having an uneasy sense of déjà-vu involving your last shopping spree on Amazon. You are not alone, and charities have noticed.

Amazon Wish Lists are now a staple tool for many organisations, a prominent example being efforts to provided disaster relief to hurricane Harvey victims by purchasing much-needed supplies of off wish lists created by non-profits active in the disaster area. Using the company’s extensive transport network to bring help proved highly effective. However, trends have moved beyond simply helping charities shop

online, morphing into shopping online for charities as if they themselves were the product. This in turn makes them expend considerable time and effort into gaining our attention in the process. In some ways, crowdfunding has turned gathering donations into a popularity contest (more than it perhaps already was) and contests always have losers.

A large point of concern with many of these crowdfunding campaigns lies in their fundamentally modest scope and scale.

While this certainly allows for detailed targeting of specific issues there is a limit to what a single campaign can do. Buying every child in a destitute area of Detroit a set of must-reads to improve literacy rates is all well and good but an education system that actually teaches them how to read might warrant a bit more spending as well. Traditional NGOs play a role beyond the mere distribution of aid through their developed expertise and strategic contacts with relevant agencies. Their ability to more efficiently coordinate large-scale projects in far-off places is what made them appealing to begin with, but such projects of the long-term variety lack the short-term gratification that a smaller, local initiative can offer. It is not inconceivable that it is exactly these establishment ties that make their more independent counterparts so attractive.

Other issues have cropped up too.

Some campaigns attract such a following, through press coverage or massive social media exposure, that they overshoot their targets by so much that you would not be able to find the original target amount with a jeweller’s eye in that giant pile of cash.

A New York teen ousted by her parents for her sexual orientation now not only has the needed college tuition and living expenses previously denied to her, but enough funds to live off for decades. There are sites that do not accept more gifts than the original campaign set out to collect but many do.

Great if you are the person in need who is on the receiving end, yet equally worthy projects who do not meet their targets for whatever reasons presumably would not mind if some of that money made its way to their accounts either. This surplus spending creates an inefficiency that, while largely harmless when looked at on a caseby-case basis, means a rather sizeable total net loss of donations that otherwise could have been put to better use.

As far as downsides go, everything mentioned above is all seriousness, doom and gloom. So, to spice things up, let us look at the final, and personally my favourite, issue with crowdfunding: scams. Of course, you might point out that traditional charities are hardly devoid of scandals of

their own. You again make a fair point, dear reader. But whereas these often involve the rich and powerful, playing out in the far-off halls of power, crowdfunding scams often come to light in entertaining TV soap-like fashion on social media, involving some of the most colourful characters around. Only a few weeks ago, one New Jersey couple (together with the supposed recipient of their benevolence), found itself in hot water for faking the entire story that had led to donations flooding in. The story went that a homeless Johnny Bobbitt Jr., 35, used his last dollars to help Kate McClure get gas for her car, which was stranded by the side of the road.

Out of gratefulness, she and her partner set up a GoFundMe-page to help her saviour find a home. The campaign raised more than $400,000 dollars and it seemed to all that this would become a feel-good story for the ages, just two years shy of getting the Oscar-worthy Hollywood treatment.

The reality, however is not quite as inspiring, though not short of well-acted performances. When Bobbitt complained that the couple was abusing the money raised in his name to fund their lifestyle, investigators started circling but what they found was more shocking still. Everything

about the heart-warming tale of selflessness along a Philadelphia highway turned out to be a fabrication; part of an elaborate get-rich-quick scheme concocted between the three of them. This story is not a oneoff. Because of the relatively little control these sites have over who sets up projects for what, the risks of having your hard-earned money go to paying for less than charitable expenses are considerably higher than with the likes of the Salvation Army.

As I mentioned earlier though, it is the season of gifts, so I won’t leave you with just criticism, but with a solution as well.

Direct Relief, a charity focussed on medical aid for emergency and poverty-stricken areas, has pioneered a donation model on their website through which donors can configure their charitable spending by using a set of sliding bars to divide their donation over different project all approved by the organisation. A drop-down menu also allows people browsing for a cause to select from a wide range of campaigns,

CHARITIES

each one including social media accounts to connect benefactors to those in need of their help in a similar fashion to crowdfunding sites. This system combines the best of both worlds: the security of traditional NGO’s and the intimate directness of crowdfunding campaigns. Strangely enough, the model has not spread to many other NGO’s yet, but it would solve most of the issues mentioned above. Now that sounds like a straight win to me.

So, should the warm glow of the Christmas season and the glühwein that comes with it, move you to give some money to someone in need, spare a thought for all the worthwhile charities who have yet to master the digital game before surfing to Indiegogo to spread the joy. We are now all free to sit down with our families to unwrap the socks our siblings picked out with so much care.

9

P R I VA C Y

so long and thanks for all the privacy T

he issue of privacy has been at the forefront of most technological debates. The matter is extremely important for the future of our security and it is important to recognise that this will decide the next generations upbringing. As Europeans, we have seen the EU attempt to tackle this issue with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In recent memory, we have seen influential voices being heard about the importance of privacy. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, spoke in October of this year about the ‘weaponisation of personal data’. He made the point that our data is being used without our consent. This statement is seemingly accurate with various cases of personal data being an issue of discussion, including the WhatsApp scandal in Brazil and the recent publication of a

10

Dan Edwards

study by Oxford University on data sharing in Google apps. Therefore, this is a problem that has no borders. It affects our political, social and economic situations of our generation and future ones.

In Brazil, earlier this year, there was a scandal over the elections. This is probably a big shock to some of you.

Mobile phone networks allow people to use WhatsApp for free to subscribers even for people without Internet plans. Therefore, WhatsApp is the most used social media site for the majority of Brazilians. The scandal comes as devices that can send over 300,000 messages at a time were used by activists to bombard users with propaganda.

Whilst this goes against parent company Facebook’s rules, it was all done by buying databases - which is legal in

Brazil. It is clear that the privacy battle has already been won by the tech companies, as the legislation – particularly in Brazil – is significantly obsolete.

An Oxford study published this year found that 90% of apps on Google share data with each other. These apps made $59 billion dollars in 2017 proving that it is worth these companies investing in data sharing. Our data is being used for advertising, credit scores or even targeted political campaigns, as seen with this scandal in Brazil. There are debates raging through most Western nations about the integrity of elections, such as in the UK, Germany and most publicly the US. We need politicians that are capable of setting appropriate regulations that contain these companies. We do not need these bumbling

buffoons that barely understand the internet as a concept, let alone being able to understand the complexity of data sharing, supervising the accountability of these tech corporations. An example of this incompetence can be found in the congressional hearing of Facebook, where Mark Zuckerberg was asked questions such as “If I’m emailing within WhatsApp does that inform your advertisers?”. This ludicrous question is not a one off in global politics, with the Japanese Minister for Cybersecurity not even knowing how to use a computer.

At present, the internet has beaten politicians worldwide.

So, is there anything we can actually do? Is there any point? These are questions with which I have struggling with for a while now. It does feel too late to regain the privacy we once had. That’s not because the tech-companies are too powerful but more because there does not seem to be much appetite from the public. People complain when scandals hit, but as is the nature for most things regarding the internet, it is forgotten within a couple of months and these corporations continue to push the boundaries of privacy laws. This is a sophisticated threat, as these corporations are finding loopholes in outdated legislation. The sad truth is that regulation always follows scandal.

The match-up that citizens of Europe and the rest of the world should make is this: is it worth having all this information and connectivity if we are at constant risk of our digital footprint falling into the wrong hands? I would answer this question, yes. The internet has brought about incredible achievements for different fields in research, particularly medicine. It is also common in today’s technological world that people’s digital footprint can be used by intelligence services to better track potential threats, thereby leaving citizens more protected.

The unrestricted internet has allowed our generation to write informative pieces of work with ease when compared to our parents’ generation. The variety of opinions has increased and whether that’s a positive, I will let you decide. Whilst it is important to limit companies such as Facebook and Google from sharing our data, realistically this is something that we cannot regain. Our priority should be limitation of this corporate power in our politics, as it is too easy for these social media sites to be abused in such areas. The European Union has begun

an active role in tackling this issue, which is commendable. However, most of these tech-companies are American and unfortunately data sharing does not have boundaries, meaning that they are not being punished enough. The EU’s best approach is to encourage the US to take firmer action in regulating these companies and place politicians who understand the importance of this issue in positions of power.

Overall, it is clear that if politicians and institutions do not adapt to the ever-changing internet then our political, social and economic policies will be severely incapable in dealing with modern issues such as data sharing.

In particular, consumer rights will be almost become non-existent. If this is not dealt with soon, then it is safe to say that privacy is no longer an attainable goal for future generations, as it will be too late.

11

ETHICS

Chirine Chalak

S

ethical cars

am slammed the car door “I can’t believe it took us so long to get here. I mean, it’s 2018 for Christ’s sake, how difficult is it to learn to drive.”

“There he goes again…” Lilli rolled her eyes, pulling her coat tighter over her shoulders.

“Yes here I go again! Do you know how many people died this year? Over 650! And that’s just the Netherlands, which is far, and I mean far, from the worst country in Europe. The French?

Don’t get me started…”

“Believe me, I didn’t want to get you started,” she sighed, but Sam didn’t want to hear. “… on the 3500 people that died last year. I’m telling you, people do not know how to drive,” he held the door open to La Jolla, the restaurant she chose for their 1-year anniversary. The waiter showed them their usual table by the window. Despite condensation, they had a good view of the street, cars passing by, stopping, swerving and cutting each other off.

12

“It’s not about not knowing how to drive,” she said. “Mistakes are made yes, not paying attention for one second might be fatal, even to you who ‘knows how to drive’. Besides, what would be your solution? Get rid of cars and just walk everywhere? At least there won’t be any accidents.”

“No, of course not,” Sam thought for a minute while the waiter was getting their order. “I think automatized cars would be the solution. More than 90% of car accidents are due to human errors: no human control, no human error, as simple as that.”

“I’m not sure about how I feel about self-driving cars… Would you get one once they’re commercialised?“ “Of course I will! And I think everyone should,” The waiter placed two glasses of red wine in front of them. “Think about it, that would mean no more endless traffic, less fuel consumption thanks to anticipation, which also means less pollution and finally, and most importantly, no more stress while driving!” Sam took a sip of Chianti, his favourite. “We would save so much time and use car travels to work, watch TV or read a book! It would be so amazing.”

“I still don’t know…“ she said.

“Ugh, you are always against technological development. It’s like when you try to convince me that letters are nicer than e-mails.”

“Well, they are, but it has nothing to do with that. Of course I think automation might help in some areas, but I am not sure I would get a self-driving car. In case of inevitable collision, what…”

“What collision? I just told you it would be much safer!” Sam looked at her over the rim of his glass. She was as pretty as the first day they met, especially when she was going against human progress.

“Yes, sure but still! It would never be 100% safe. And in the event of a collision, what should the car do?”

“Well it would be equipped with an algorithm calculating the best option

possible.” In that moment, he felt quite gauging public opinion?” smart, but he saw in her sparkling eyes she “Researchers from the MIT actually had already thought of that. made a survey to do that. They ask the “And that’s exactly my point! What questions I just asked and changed some of is the best option? It’s like the Trolley the details like the number of pedestrians, problem; there is no answer to that kind if you are in the car alone or with your child, if the pedestrians are young or old, of questions.” rich or poor etc. More than two million “The trolley what?” people across almost every country in the “The Trolley problem, Philippa Foot world took it. Mostly people wanted to thought of it in 1967. It is an ethical save as many lives as possible, preferring dilemma where you are driving a trolley young over old, and rich over poor… You when the break spill and on the track get the idea. But they do not agree on every ahead of you are 5 workmen that you are point. Let’s imagine something else...” going to run over. However, you can steer “Ugh, all right,” he sighed, caving. onto another track, but there is still one “Imagine there is a pedestrian crossing. worker you might kill, instead of the five.

There is one man at the end of the crossing What do you do?” because he started walking while the light “Well, then I would switch tracks and was still green. Now, in front of you are kill one person instead of five,” he said, two people who started crossing after the trying to figure out her next move just like light turned red. Would you still sacrifice a chess player. one life to save two even though they “Alright, your judgement makes sense basically broke the law?” and is in line with utilitarianism: the “Hmm… If I stick to the utilitarian morally correct decision is the one that principle I guess I would still save the maximize well being for the greatest most people…” number of people. Now, let’s imagine that “So that study has shown that people you know that one worker, but you don’t know the five others, what would you do here, and in Western countries in general, would probably stick to the utilitarian then?” approach, whereas in countries like Japan, “Well… That’s more difficult to say,” he people would judge the two people are whispered, trying to avoid an answer by guilty and would save the law-abiding taking a sip of wine. one.”

“That’s my point. And there are many “That is a difficult one to judge, both other scenarios: let’s imagine you are in points of view are valid…” your car and you come across a pedestrian “Yes of course! All I am saying is that crossing. In front of you are two children playing, but you could go left and kill two these are questions you should ask yourself elderly people or go right and crash into before saying you would definitely buy a a wall killing yourself. What do you do? self driving-car. Plus, you brag all the time about your new car and how the ‘sensation Kill yourself to save those kids?” of driving is amazing’,” Lilli laughed, “Lilli… I can’t answer that…” quite happy with her little victory. It felt “Exactly. The problem is, these are the same as winning every chess game scenarios that might happen. Yes, there is they played during the passed year. an infinitesimal chance they would, but it “Oh come on, stop making fun of me! is still a chance. Therefore, scientists have The sensation is amazing,” he said before to incorporate solutions to these problems downing the last of his wine. “Not as into the algorithm you were talking about amazing as a full stomach though, where earlier. But how to decide on such difficult is that waiter?” questions?”

“Well… I don’t know… What about

13

MA

2.

14

INTIMACY

ASTURBATION

.0

B. Allen

W

e live in a world that is increasingly mechanised, virtualised, and digitalised. Humans are no longer needed for the most basic of skills such as sealing canned food to the assemblage of complex computer parts. But there is something which can never be completely mechanised: sex, or at least, masturbation. The reason being is that there will always need at least one person made of flesh and blood. This doesn’t mean that things aren’t changing rapidly in sex, foreplay, and masturbation. Where there is a pleasurable thing to do in your free time, there is a market to cater to your every desire, whether you’re single or in a relationship.

If you haven’t guessed what this article is about yet, let me make it clear: sex toys.

These devices are, in fact, nothing new. In Amsterdam and Prague there are museums dedicated to the history of sex toys. Wooden to porcelain toys designed for both vaginal and anal application, chastity belts, and some rudimentary, automatic machines for women to pleasure themselves; all of these are just a few of the examples. Even back then, toys seemed to be mainly aimed at women as it takes more time and skill for them to

reach their climax.

However, times are a changin’.

Technology has progressed to a point where we could, theoretically, dump our significant others and have a great experience in bed each and every time. This is especially coming true for those of you out there with a penis. But with what effect?

To show you what’s out there, without having to risk anyone stumbling across a potentially embarrassing browser history, I have put together a list of three advanced toys per sex.

Men 3. For those among you who are a bit adventurous, gay, or just curious (no homo), there is the vibrating prostate massager.

At first this may seem like your average anal toy which could be found in the Roman times, this one is modern in the sense that it is designed to stimulate two areas, the vibrating base hitting that sensitive spot between anus and balls. It can also be charged by USB cable, is waterproof, and made with medical grade silicone, meaning possible latex allergies won’t act up. This little machine can reduce the risk of prostate cancer, prostatitis, and erectile

disfunction, but can also improve the seminal flow (bet you didn’t know that). Now that you can see there are also some quite decent benefits that come with this toy, you might refrain from thinking miss me with that gay shit.

2. Next up is the guybrator.

This variety on the popular female toy, allows men to get the same sensations their counterparts do. Rather than most toys made for the penis, this one is not designed to fully fit over it, but instead to ‘hold it’. You can adjust the fit, add lubrication if you want, and the guybrator stimulates some of your more sensitive parts. All together this creates a hand job experience like you have never felt before. While relatively simple, it has taken new technology to develop a male toy which does not try to mimic the female body, making it truly unique.

1. The number one is something you might have guessed: the full-blown sex doll. This is the ultimate replacement of the female body and can be used in ways you should never use its counterpart (for one you can leave it in the wardrobe for days on end). They come in more budget friendly forms, but also in deluxe versions with about as many pulsating

15

parts as you can imagine. Also, you can get ones which look like your favourite porn-star or anime character (I won’t tell anyone if you won’t). Your social skills no longer matter if you want to bed a ‘girl’.

Women 3. First up, a toy which is most fun if you are not in control: the vibrating panty. While not ‘new’, it is a toy from this century.

This piece of lingerie has a remote control and multiple settings, inviting some interesting scenarios. What if you wear them at the supermarket and your partner decides to turn them on? Yay or nay? It can also help skip fore-play by turning it on during dinner and having a quickie for dessert. But you can also use it alone, where ever, whenever you want. Vibrating panties add this psychological element of inappropriateness and domination that no other sex toy can provide.

2. In the middle position I have something for your final hole: the butt plug. This toy can be much like the vibrating prostate massager, however there are far more varieties available which actually are all unisex (boys, you can pay attention here too). As the sex toy museums show, this is one of the oldest type of toy, but they have been given some surprising twists over the years. There are inflatable butt plugs, metal ones with brightly coloured jewels at the base, vibrating ones, and a variety which simultaneously imitates rimming.

Toys which can only be described as ever surprising.

16

also lost with our new toys, at least when used solo. In Asia and America there are already young men who prefer their manufactured toys over social interaction.

Some could go as far as to say the ‘replacement’ of another human being is a sign that women aren’t getting the equality they deserve, having been thrown aside for a robot which cannot complain or run away. However, I believe there is a more primal reason. When sex becomes about release rather than about mutual trust, it gets increasingly difficult to establish basic, social relationships. As sex toys become increasingly more portable, the release can be sought anywhere, bypassing any human interaction. The ‘love’ hormone, oxytocin, could be to blame. This is released in a large dose during climax, but dissipates quickly, whereas in relationships, non-sexual ones included, oxytocin is released more steadily. Once you’ve seen a person naked and at their most vulnerable (and with the oxytocin that produces), people in clothes seem far less threatening.

Another element which only seems to enhance the preference of lonely climax, is pornography. In itself it creates unrealistic expectations of what sex is like. Without the sex toys, this can lead to awkward and disappointing first times, or possibly a succession of drunken one-night stands trying to achieve that perfect sex scene.

While it may lead to some people being emotionally broken, the effect with sex toys could be worse. Virtual reality headsets combine porn and sex toys, associating unrealistic sights and perfect sensations. A toy will not be able to say ‘no’ to anything you do to it. Although this doesn’t translate directly into real sexual contact afterwards, this slight change in mentality, over time, could lead to an overly perverse relationship with sex: complete objectification of the other sex.

It would need as much, or more time, to rectify this change.

1. Spot number one is given to the rabbit-style vibrators which distinguish themselves by providing internal and clitoral stimulation. While unable to give you the realistic feel of the dildo, it does add a whole new dimension to conventional vibrators (even to those for internal use). By adding the stimulus for the clitoris, which can be either vibrating or suction-based, the rabbit is a double When considering sex toys, and their packed punch which will leave you uses, keep in mind that the ultimate sex ‘toys’ are human beings themselves reeling. and that human interaction in general is These only show you a glimpse of what the ultimate fore-play. The first times, the future of masturbation looks like. For the drunken one-night stands, and the men, innovations don’t seem to be able relationships, they’re all part of the game. to go much further, female replacements being at the ready, but what is to say of the power and quality of these toys? So far, technology has not been able to go as far as to reproduce the intimacies of sex; the individual sounds people make, the way a warm body feels in the cold, the laughs, and the company. The joys of teasing, fore-play, and cuddling afterwards are

2.0? °

Mia Penn

an eco-sensitive culture

I

t was one of those numerous grey days and the main shopping streets of Maastricht were bustling with emancipated individuals, all teaming and thrusting amongst one another in a somehow harmonious and comfortable chaos. I found myself, yet again, a part of this plethora of dazed, idyllic consumers. Diving out of the throng of frenetic shoppers, into the relatively calm interior of a clothing store like any other, a series of printed t-shirts caught my eye. As I leafed through them, hanging from their rack, they proclaimed: “Vote Earth for a Change�,

17

C L I M AT E C H A N G E

“Eco Sensitive”, “Eco-habits” and “0% Waste Material”. All of them made from 100 percent cotton with “eco text” and manufactured by one of the most ecologically and ethically irresponsible multinational companies on the globe, “Inditex”. In all honesty, I was initially drawn to the shirts because what they were loudly proclaiming is exactly the kind of sentiment that I try to align myself with. However, after a moment’s pause and mental digestion of the extreme irony before me, reality set in and I couldn’t decide if I wanted to laugh or to mount a protest. This moment was one of many which have distilled in me an absolute certainty that we currently live in a jarring moment in history which is overrun by extreme cognitive dissonance. For the best part of the last century we have been studiously ignoring a crisis which is now very tangible and dangerous, and yet we are consciously increasing our efforts to exacerbate the causal factors of this crisis. Beyond being the single greatest global challenge humanity has yet faced, Climate Change is also undeniably a stunning moment for introspection on human ambiguity and rationality. I did not end up buying a t-shirt.

This October the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a special climate report detailing the impacts of a 1.5°C rise in global temperature from Pre-Industrial times and laying out

18

parameters for global climate policy in light of current data and climate projections. The report is not the most thrilling read, but I would argue that it is the single most important piece of global news produced in the past 3 months.

Essentially, it details that the initial goal of keeping global temperatures “well below 2 degrees” is not sufficient. It would seem that 2°C was more a goal which quite politely fit into the economic agendas of most of our governments as it would not impact the economy too harshly, but doesn’t ensure safety from environmental disaster. Moreover, even if 2 degrees was a sufficient limit, we are currently on track to hit around 3°C warming by the end of the century, according to the IPCC report. A 3°C warmer world is unimaginable; we quite simply cannot be certain of what would happen if warming reached such an extreme. The unfortunate reality is that this current climate agreement to keep temperatures below 2 degrees still spells significant risk for more vulnerable populations. More secure nations would be misguided to think the suffering of these vulnerable populations would be limited

to only them.

The solutions put forward by the report in order to keep warming below 1.5 degrees are very technocentric. The report makes it clear that we already have most of the technology necessary to achieving this goal of 1.5 degrees, but that it is now a matter of implementation.

While technology is valuable in tackling this crisis, it is worth looking at a more basic and daunting underlying issue which arguably needs to be addressed if we want to deal with Climate Change. It is that tricky notion with which I was so overwhelmed when confronted by the irony of those “eco text” t-shirts - culture is at the very core of this issue.

In her book, “This Changes Everything”, activist and journalist Naomi Klein wrote that “faced with a crisis that threatens our survival as a species, our entire culture is continuing to do the very same thing that caused the crisis”. What is needed, before reasonable policies on climate can be implemented and before large-scale, fast-paced change on an institutional and governmental level can take place, is a shift in culture and a shift in global thinking. It would seem that this crisis has less to do with finding sustainable technologies for power than to do with the politics of human power, and more specifically with shifting that power from corporations to communities. Here we are speaking about balancing power through determined and diverse social force. However, this is not as daunting as it sounds.

Perhaps we need to break away from the optimistic smugness that things are

so much better now than they were in progress). It is an interesting ambigu- impact as possible. At first it may seem the past, but rather consider that things ity then that faced with this crisis we that we are looking at this crisis. But in the past could even be superior and are so resistant to actual (albeit radical) we aren’t, not truly. And sometimes we thus useful to the present. Today, we change. There is an increasing popular- do truly look at the problem. But then are at ease with the idea that progress ity around notions of being aware and we tend to forget about it. We have an is desirable and essential, that we need environmentally conscious. Yet this odd case of “on-and-off-again ecologito keep changing and moving forward cultural faddism does not often enough cal amnesia”, as Klein eloquently puts in order to succeed and that remaining translate into a conducive shift in cul- it. We deny because we are afraid of the the same or reverting back is a failure. ture, because it has been constructed full reality of this crisis, and quite ratioSuch is the liberal, modern mindset. A within the modern capitalist framework. nally we are afraid because this crisis need for sustainability alongside inno- A significant amount of environmental will change everything. vation poses a challenge to this mindset. ‘action’ in our societies is really a hid- We cannot afford to be paralysed by It seems incredibly hard to shift cultural den form of apathy, of climate change fear any longer. The IPCC special report perspectives, to give seemingly radical denialism, and only makes us feel as if makes that abundantly clear. We have concepts real room. Some of these con- we have acted and are thus exempt from tried to implement incremental change, cepts - such as global basic income, or further moral obligation to the issue. I but for the most part we have failed. The real recognition of rights for Indigenous could have bought one of those t-shirts, fact that we are headed for an overshoot people, which would help shift focus promoting the opinion that we should be of 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the away from economic gain - would “eco-sensitive”, and think that I am being century is a testament to that. We have make this goal of 1.5 degrees possible proactive. Yet in truth I would only be failed up until now, largely because the and may seem radical now but would contributing to the problem. Naomi market-fundamentalism which currently become normal with time. This is a pat- Klein argues that denial is diverse and thrives in our society is at odds with the tern of thesis, antithesis and synthesis abundant, in ways we might not expect. change that needs to occur. First, we seen throughout history; it is the pen- There is the brand of denial which must shift our ideological direction and dulum swinging back and forth before Trump is known for - blatant, irrational change the balance of who holds power finding equilibrium. Essentially, it is denial. But then there is the kind which in our societies. At the very least, do not important at this moment to be open to most of us will find we are culpable of: look away now, do not allow yourself change which may appear radical within we look at the crisis for a moment, and to partake any longer in this “ecologithe cultural context we are accustomed then look away. We look but tell our- cal amnesia” or perpetuate ego-serving to. selves that humans are clever and will “eco-sensitive” fads.

Our Liberal Western society was built come up with a technological miracle. on radical change. Our culture advocates We look but are hyper-rational and conconstant change (equating it at times to vince ourselves that it is more efficient to focus on economic development than climate solutions because wealth will protect against inevitable weather extremes. We look but tell ourselves we are too busy to care about something so distant and abstract. We look but tell ourselves that we can only focus on our own actions and make as little negative

“Perhaps we need to break away from the optimistic smugness that things are so much better now than they were in the past

19

obliviate! the future of human memory Kavya Narayanan

A

construct that we try and preserve so desperately, is in many ways, the most fragile of them all; human memory. On a philosophical note, it could be declared that human memory cannot be trusted at all. But for all practical purposes, where really is the tipping point?

From an evolutionary perspective, it seems wondrous that we are able to recall things with such fascinating detail. For the most part, it is assumed that we only remember certain aspects of an episode in vivid detail; as for the rest, we imagine.

The ‘memory wars’ of the 90s hold special relevance in this ongoing debate about the extent to which our memories can really be trusted. Experts in the field are still incredulous about the famous Freudian theory of ‘repressed memories’, where he suggests that victims of trauma have memories of the incident buried in their subconscious, which can be recovered many years later in vivid detail. Hence, we are left unsure as to whether we should take case reports by the letter today. Nonetheless, it cannot be excluded from consideration that the victim’s word remains the cornerstone of

20

research and development, primarily in the field of psychology and psychiatry.

What gets encoded into your memory is determined by a multitude of factors: what details you choose to pay attention to, what you already have registered in memory, your expectations, needs and emotional state. You then integrate this information with the other code that’s already embedded in your long term, autobiographical memory. What you retrieve later from that memory is determined by the same multitude of factors that contributed to encoding as well as what drove you to recollect the incident in the first place.

Now imagine you’re a victim of childhood abuse. Besides the fascinating array of factors that play a role in preserving your memory in a normal, neutral scenario, the sheer emotionality of that event could potentially distort the already fragile truth into something barely recognizable. And yet, to complicate matters, some cases present only eyewitness testimony, or even worse, no eyewitness at all; in that case, it really comes down to how convincing the story sounds.

How much does it help, in that case, to examine the biological basis of memory?

Well, apart from the legal battles, the clinical spaces show us how crucial it is for us to study how memories form, or how they can even be altered. In light of disorders that place a huge socioeconomic burden on society like Alzheimer’s or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the future of treatment lies in tweaking our memories to alleviate the pain tagged to those deeply entrenched, stressful experiences.

The most tangible explanation of a memory so far is that it is an ‘engram’, a construct that represents the collective changes that different neuronal cell populations undergo when presented with a single experience. To visualize this idea, think about the first time you rode a bike, or the first time you moved to a new city. There are special brain cells that are stimulated by different aspects of that experience; the sights, the sounds, the smells and the emotions associated with that significant experience. These changes basically represent the written code of your memories of that experience.

If we agree that genetics is the order of the new world, it would be fascinating to discover whether these engrams can be engineered genetically as well. There are experiments ongoing that show that the entire cell population coding for an engram can be erased, so to speak, like deleting files off a hard disk. This process is complicated, as we don’t know if this would erase the code itself or just overwrite it with a different one.

It has been shown that when mice are exposed to a negative stimulus (when researchers gave them mild foot shocks, for example), they learn from that experience and react with fear when placed in the same cage again. Similarly, positive

experiences are created by putting male mice in cages with female mice. In the second phase of the experiment, the researchers placed the mice in the cage that delivers foot shocks, while they stimulated the cells responsible for the positive memory. To their amazement, they discovered that the mice were less fearful. This principle could be used to treat patients with PTSD to possibly overwrite their negative memories with positive ones.

Another team of researchers have been able to identify the engram coding for this experience and have even managed to delete it. How was this possible?

After identifying the specific cells associated with the engram, the team made the proteins in those cells susceptible to the diphtheria toxin (a disease that mice can normally resist). Once injected with the toxin, those specific cells died, and the mice did not show the expected fear response. These experiments have major implications for research in memory.

CRISPR-Cas9 has made it astoundingly simple for us to redesign our own DNA with only an enzyme and a guide molecule. The guide molecule takes its enzyme to the gene which you want to modify, the enzyme cuts the gene, and then it can be modified to change its function. But the implications of manipulating such a delicate system are not completely known yet.

We need to resolve, at least in part, the ethical dilemmas that inevitably accompany such experiments before we continue research in the field.

The ethics of such manipulations do not concern only the genetic approaches. What if we could use drugs to manipulate memories? We do not remember everything we experience. Research shows that upon encountering new information or experiences, we form a short-term memory that is labile and vulnerable to interference.

Some information from this short-term memory is then stored more stably in longterm memory through a process called consolidation.

Proteins help mediate the long-term memory trace; when their synthesis is inhibited, it prevents the expression of long-term but not short-term memory.

These proteins induce lasting structural changes in neurons and/or connections between them, thereby creating a more stable neural network that represents the memory in the brain.

Interestingly, these long-term memory traces are not immutable. Consolidated memories can, under certain conditions become malleable when reactivated. They require further protein synthesis in order to be re-stabilized. When rats are exposed to a tone that is followed by an electric shock, they develop a defensive freezing response to this tone. This freezing response serves as an index of their fear memory. Just as the initial long-term storage of a memory was found to depend on protein synthesis within a specific time window from

HUMAN BODY

learning, long-term memory could also be blocked if we inhibit protein synthesis shortly after the memory is reactivated. As a result, 24 hours later, this learned freezing response would not occur because of our manipulation. Due to similarities with initial consolidation, this process has become known as reconsolidation.

Reconsolidation appears to open a window during which the content of the reactivated memory can be edited or its reconsolidation into long-term memory blocked or disrupted. This leads to memory loss or modification. These memory changes can be induced using a range of memory-modifying agents in model organisms ranging from fish to crabs to rats. More recently, experimental work has demonstrated reconsolidation-based memory modification in humans. It won’t be long before experiments like these become our reality.

Then again, can memories be altered even without drugs? Two primary research paradigms have been explored extensively in this regard. The first paradigm, called the ‘misinformation’ paradigm involves testing research subjects on a specific event and seeing how accurate their memory for that event is afterward. The second paradigm, focusing on implanting false memories, involves bringing subjects in and asking suggestive questions and seeing whether that influences recall of past events. There have been hundreds of experiments done involving thousands of subjects showing that it’s relatively easy to change people’s memory of the details of an event that they’ve actually experienced.

Despite the ethical limitations imposed on laboratory studies of artificially created memories, research has shown that creating false memories of a relatively benign childhood experience, i.e., becoming lost in a shopping mall as a young child could be easily induced. In other studies, more extreme examples of false memories (e.g., spilling wine on the bride’s parents at a family wedding or a near-death experience as a child) could be introduced in as many as a quarter of the subjects tested. Even in subjects who failed to develop a completely false memory, partial recall could be generated in nearly half of all research subjects tested in such experiments.

If memories can be altered on so many levels, from complex genetic manipulations to questionable drugs or even simple suggestive questioning, will human memory in the future sustain as a reliable picture of our own lives?

21

smart INTERVIEW

Amelie Ohler & Julia Hönnecke

In the movie limitless, when Eddie takes a smart drug for the first time, he describes his experience by saying “I was blind, and now I can see. I wasn’t high, I wasn’t wired.

Just clear. I knew what I needed to do and how to do it.

Today, many universities have a culture of well-established performance enhancing drugs.

Only legal when prescribed, they supposedly improve concentration, memory and mental stamina when studying. This is intriguing since many of us feeling an increased pressure to perform better academically.

At Maastricht University, with exams every two months stress is always present. While there is no such ‘wikipedia drug’ yet according to recent studies, 25% of Dutch students have tried the use of “smart drugs” at least once. But how do smart drugs work? How dangerous are smart drugs, such as Ritalin? And what role does the placebo effect play?

Since UM is most likely no exception to these statistics, the Maastricht Diplomat has decided to talk to people who have experience in the area. We conducted an interview with two students who told us about their personal experience with smart drugs. For a more professional perspective, we sat down with Mr. Blokland, an associate psychology professor at UM, who explained what he learned in his research about pills which enhance the brain’s abilities.

22

Interview with Bonnie & Clyde, two UM students Which smart drugs have you used?

Bonnie and Clyde: We have only tried Ritalin before. The others are less common in Maastricht How frequently do you use drugs to study?

Clyde: I have tried it for two exam preparations and the following exam itself. I used it every other day in the morning and then the morning of the exam. I wouldn’t take it every day since it is made for people with attention disorder.

Bonnie: I’ve taken Ritalin for exams before as well. I have also tried Ritalin at festivals before, so not only in a learning environment. I agree with Clyde, an off-day in between is important.

What caused you to want to try them out?

Bonnie: To be honest I think I have problems with concentration sometimes. I was additionally pressured because I was really desperate to pass some of my exams. I had exams and resit exams in the same week which I all needed to pass. Therefore, I really needed a couple of focused days in a row. Like I said the desperateness made me look into Ritalin.

Clyde: Same for me actually. I was pretty stressed out about not being able to learn everything on time. I take a lot of time to motivate myself to actually study. Maybe it’s an attention disorder, maybe

not. But it definitely helped me ‘stay on the chair’ for a long period of time and do my work faster and more effectively.

Bonnie: When I take Ritalin, I could sit down for two hours and study without any distraction.

Before you took them for the first time, what did you expect to happen? Many say Ritalin make you ‘super-focused and super-smart’.

Did you have the same experience?

Clyde: Well I talked a lot about the effects with my friends and watched videos. So, I knew what I was getting into.

I am sure that the placebo effect did play a role in it. Obviously, I wanted it to work. You cannot be sure if all the work you did on Ritalin is because of the Ritalin, or if it’s also your mindset. I am not sure if it’s 50/50 each. But whatever it was, it did work for me.

Bonnie: I think the first time, placebo really plays a role.

You expect something to happen. I am sure, the first time I felt something because I was

expecting. But there have been times when I took it and didn’t feel anything as well.

What would you consider as benefits and disadvantages and why does one outweigh the other?

Clyde: Well, what I know of is if I take it too frequently, it can have permanent effects on my memory. That’s why I only take it now and then and give my body plenty of time to recover from it.

Bonnie: I have anxiety. I know that a side effect of Ritalin can be that it enhances it. I have taken too much once accidentally. It really stressed me out. Before, during and even after my exam, when I was supposed to calm down I just felt really anxious. That’s definitely a disadvantage.

Do you view using smart drugs as cheating?

Bonnie: No, not at all. It’s like drinking too much coffee. I am still finding out the solutions for myself, I am just a little more focused while doing it.

Clyde: I don’t find it cheating necessarily. It may sound like

drugs will they make you smart?

cheating to some people. For example, if you have really good grades and someone who takes Ritalin gets a 9 or 10.

Maybe they think it is unfair.

But I have never thought about it actually.

Well, in sports taking any drugs is seen as cheating because it physically boosts you. That is, if you think about it, the same as you are doing.

Bonnie: That’s true actually.

But then again in sports you can expect the result to be much better. In an exam you still do your own thinking and studying because you never know what they are going to ask you.

Interview with Mr. Blokland, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Psychopharmacology and Neuropsychology What exactly are “smart drugs”?

“Smart drugs” is a word that is associated with pills that seem to improve your brain function and performance. In the pharmaceutical companies, people

talk about “neurotropics”. It is a very generic name for all these kinds of pills you can find e.g. on the internet to enhance your cognitive functions.

There are many stories about the really high productivity and efficiency people experience when they use smart drugs.

Are the effects scientifically proven?

In my impression, the smart pills that you can buy via the internet are mainly there to make money for the companies that sell them. We have recently done two studies with two kinds of these smart drugs.

They were placebo-controlled studies, where subjects did not know whether they received a smart drug or a placebo pill.

In both studies, we didn’t find any effect of the smart drugs. I think this lack of actual effect will apply to 95% the pills that you can buy on the internet. In my impression, there is a huge placebo effect. We don’t know this for sure yet however, and I am actually planning some studies on this question right now.

Do you think there has been a trend towards more use or has the topic just received more attention recently?

Yes, definitely. First of all, the number of options and especially their availability has increased because of the internet. But the other thing is, that students feel like they experience more pressure. In their perception, the most important thing to do is to get good grades and it seems to me like they are becoming more and more competitive when it comes to their academic performance.

Considering this increased competition that students feel, do you believe that it is ethical to take smart drugs?

Well, when I was a student I also drank coffee to stay awake for long evenings. I personally don’t have any objections from an ethical point of view, because I don’t really care how you achieved the outcome of a test. If you believe in smart drugs and think they may help you – I don’t really see a problem. But: it is well known that when you take e.g. Ritalin for a

longer time, it can have adverse effects. So, from a medical point of view, I wouldn’t recommend it.

What would you advise students, who feel the need to take smart drugs in order to pass their exams? Do you maybe have some tips on how to be able to focus better without them?

Well, the best remedy against bad performance is studying better. But, if you are really having trouble, I would recommend maybe drinking some coffee or tea, because one of the best smart drugs is actually caffeine! Its effect is well known from scientific literature. I mean - don’t expect miracles, but studies have consistently shown, that we actually do experience some improvement e.g. in attention and cognition. It really seems that coffee actually might be the best smart drug that we have at the moment. But if you think you need to take smart drugs such as Ritalin, I personally don’t really see a problem if you think it helps you study.

One thing that I would like to add however, is that the worst thing you can actually do is to take beta blockers before an exam in order to get calm and to perform better. It is actually really well known that they block memory! If you are nervous, only a better preparation will make you less nervous during the test. Most students don’t use the right learning methods. Memory is associative. There are so many mnemonics that you can use: make a song or a rime out of the material, establish links between chapters or make mind maps! Personally, I think, that if you’ve found the right way to study for yourself, then you really don’t need any other (smart) drug.

23

MORE THAN A

NUMBER Michael Keith

T

he debate around the relationship between humanity and technology is nothing new. This is a conversation that goes back hundreds of years; sometimes raging and sometimes not. It came to the forefront in Western society during the Industrial Revolution with the 19th century Luddite backlash against the textile industry arguably being the kickstarter. Since those times the push towards progress has been a defining feature of modernity; the idea being that there is no improvement unless there is progress, where progress is centred around scientific and technological advancements. As the enlightenment ideal of rationalism has won out against mysticism and romanticism, so has Western society moved onwards and upwards. There are very few arguments against this: not only are

24

we empirically healthier than ever before, thanks to the leaps and bounds made in the medical field, but there is more relative societal safety than ever before; both physical and economic. If we are to take the ‘health, wealth, and happiness’ criteria as an indicator of a happy life, then two boxes are surely ticked. The question lies in happiness, whether or not our undeniable societal entanglement with technology has made us any happier.

To address this subject, I am going to have a look at the case of technology in sport; more specifically, in modern professional cycling. If we are to look at sports, and especially professional sports, there is very

little else that has the indiscriminate global effect of evoking emotion, often intensely.

The emotion invoked is something that no matter where we come from, we can all relate to; whether it is the joy of victory or the pain of defeat, from an elite national level to local pick-up games with the crew.

Within this, there are nuances. A crushing loss hurts, whereas snatching victory from the jaws of defeat is spoken about in tones of awe for years to come. The conversation around Bobby Moore’s 1966 football world cup winning squad thrives in pubs up and down England, the South African victory in the 1995 rugby world cup is credited to helping one of the most

miraculous post-colonial regime changes succeed, and the early 20thC exploits of Italian cycling hero Fausto Coppi in the Dolomites are the eternal reference point of the tifosi. And so the pursuit of victory continues, throughout history.

In this pursuit, professional cycling is one of the most highly technologically advanced sports there is. Almost unique in its marriage between man and machine, it shares a rare place alongside sports such as sailing and rowing. However, neither of those latter mentioned sports evoke the near cultish dedication as does the Tour de France. It is on this stage, the greatest stage in world cycling there is, that we

have seen the greatest advancements in cycling. Grand Tour racing - that is to say racing 21 stages; each a legitimate race in its own right - is an incomparable beast.

The greater the race, the greater the margin of error. Team Sky principal David Brailsford uses the concept of marginal gains as his reference point for success.

As the guiding light to the team that has won 6 of the last 7 editions of the Tour, with three different winners, and two other Grand Tours in that timeframe beside, he surely knows what he is talking about. But what is he talking about?

The concept of marginal gains is that every single second counts, essentially. If a rider

SPORTS

can gain a second a day on his closest rival, then he has 21 seconds by the end of the race. Considering that the margins of victory have often been less than this, the concept is not absurd. And so, cycling has been chasing this ideal. Simply put, there are three essential facets to going fast.

Equipment, training, strategy. In 2018, top end bicycles are much of a muchness.

Each manufacturer has their own philosophy for what is fastest but are refining it down to split hairs. The largest difference in cycling comes down to training and race strategy. As the sport has progressed, so have training techniques. The invention of heart rate monitors and power meters,

25

tools to measure and quantify an athlete’s body, are now indispensable weapons in the professional arsenal. What can be measured can be improved, to put it bluntly. Team Sky have used this philosophy to devastating effect, surmising that if they have the overall strongest team then they can control the race. A commonly bandied about power number is 400 watts, and so I will stick to this for the sake of simplicity. To hold an average of 400W for an extended period of time is a monstrous effort on a bicycle.

Considering that an average grand tour stage is over 5hrs in length, there is only so much the human body can achieve.

Therefore, if a team has the strength to sit on the front of the peloton at 370W, then any would-be attackers would have to sit at a much higher average in order to beat them. Not impossible, but highly improbable. And so Team Sky does just this. Using their power meters - their technological know-how - to their advantage, they dictate racing. And it undeniably works. Using the

26

highest level technology, and more importantly the utmost dedication to using it, their are the dominant force in cycling.

They win and they win a lot.

But perhaps something has been lost along the way.

Yes, modern cycling does have the fastest racing in history.

Never before has it been this consistently fast and strong, of that there is no doubt. If the goal of going fast is the priority, then this goal has been achieved. But there is dissident in the ranks. There are now repeated calls in the cycling world, from fans to racers to the director of the Tour de France itself, that cycling has lost its heart and soul. No longer is winning exciting, no longer are emotions invoked, no longer is there unsurety of the outcome. Winning has become the only value and the question is, where is the value in that? If we wanted to win at all costs, doping would still be legal. However, it is not and so we are left with asking what is it exactly that we value. It is not a question of fair or unfair, as these strategies and training techniques are common knowledge. But rather, do we want

predictability in winning or do we want a spectacle? This is where the human factor comes back into play. The suicidal attacks, the improbable victories when a lone rider came out best against all the odds, the guessing game of cat and mouse in the final kilometers these are what makes racing... well, racing. In the search of speed, technological capabilities have put a stranglehold on the professional peloton; turning it from a unknowable race into a predictable caravan moving its way up and down the French countryside.

In our search for constant improvement, a search that in and of itself is not reprehensible, we have forgotten that perhaps it is not all about technology. Technologies quantify, but can they qualify? Can we still justifiably put a number on our happiness or should we start hearkening back to the Romantics, when life was still mysterious? Undoubtedly there are many out there who will argue against technology, but that is waste of time since it is here to stay. Perhaps a more pertinent question is to ask where we can find a viable

marriage of the romantic and rational ideals. For as long as there is technology and humanity in the same space, there will be a clash. Perhaps it does not need to be so.

crossword puzzle across

1. Stanley Kubrick’s favorite game Stella Theocharidou 5. The more a person believes they are going to benefit from a treatment, the more likely it is that they will experience a benefit Amelie Ohler & Julia Hönnecke 6. What post-humanism refers to the problem of humans always being centered in the debate concerning the climate Nadine Meertens 8. A philosophy of life which is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development Ceren Cingi 11. The idea that the accumulation of small advantages creates a larger advantage (plural) Michael Keith 12. American semi-auntonomous robot whose name is a reference to a 1987 Sci-Fi movie directed by John McTiernan Marie-Sophie Silan 13. Ethical theory stating the best action is the one producing the well-being of the greatest number Chirine Chalak

down

2. What famous figure used the phrase “ennemies of the people” to describe the media before Trump recently? Simon Pompé 3. A favorite style of toy to make any girl’s day B. Allen 4. Tendency to look at the climate crisis, only to forget about it again as a result of deep-seated fear that looking at the crisis properly will change everything Mia Penn 7. Using media in a way that doesn’t bring us closer to others but rather isolates us Carolin Lurz 9. Internet phenomenon displacing traditional means of gathering charitable donations Matthijs Lenaerts 10. Source of scandal during the Brazilian campaign election Dan Edwards 14. Process by which some information from short term memory is stored more stably in long term memory Kavya Naranyanan 1

2 3 4 5

7 6

9

8 10

14

11 12

13

Some curious little robots wanted to be in every article in this edition. Sometimes they’re not yet optimised for hide and seek, but some are pretty good at it. Can you find them all?

27

JOURNALISM ‘They first came for the journalists’, as a saying goes, ‘we don’t know what happened next’.

As of December 2018, 81 journalists and news workers have been killed worldwide.

It is a deadly year for reporters, not only in crisis-ridden regions such as the Middle East, but also in Western and Eastern Europe.

Reporteur sans Frontières (RSF) is an NGO that keeps track of actions against journalists everywhere and ranks countries in their state of freedom of expression. As of December, the statistics do not look good. Europe, traditionally spearheading the ranking, has not had as bad a year in a long time. Recent cases of violence against the media also show how important young, civil society is in breaking the silence.

In democracies, the press is commonly considered the ‘fourth branch of power’, providing an additional check on the state apparatus. Journalists articulate public opinion and shape it by framing the facts in a meaningful way. Good journalism means to put the finger where it hurts and entice public debate. Bad journalism is slander and the misrepresentation of facts. However, in recent developments, that correlate with the international trend of disregarding the rule of law, journalists are often the first to be targeted by statesmen who do not like to see their deeds made public. This article introduces three types of threats against global and European journalism and describes civil society’s vital role in protecting free journalism - effectively becoming the ‘fifth branch of power’.

Criminal politics Jan Kuciak was muted indefinitely in February 2018 in a small Slovakian village. He and his girlfriend were shot point blank in their own home by a hired assassin. He was 27.

Kuciak had long been raising

his voice to combat corruption.

His latest work delved deep into connections between a powerful business magnate, the Slovakian mafia and systemic embezzlement of EU funds with the help of high government officials - only stopping short of then-President Fico.

He was murdered because someone took notice of his work, which had to be reconstructed from his incomplete notes posthumously.

The case came as a shock to the Slovakian population and foreign commentators. Many described a wave of hopelessness sweeping the country.

Citizens were afraid that things were getting as bad as the corrupt Communist times gripped especially young students.

Infuriated, they entered the streets during the cold, bitter winter months to protests.

For new elections, freedom of expression and justice. And out of pure anger. How could this happen in Europe, in 2018?

Kuciak’s death was eerily reminiscent of a case from October 2017 on EU-state Malta, where Daphne Galizia was also murdered while investigating criminal activity within the Maltese government. Just last October, Bulgarian journalist Viktoria Marinova had been found dead and violated, after moderating the first episode of an investigative series into national corruption. There are long-known political corruption schemes in Italy and elsewhere. The mafia’s tentacles are far reaching.

The threat of criminal politics is characterised by extreme secrecy and institutional unwillingness to cooperate since high-level personalities are themselves implicated.

Thus, it takes courageous individuals who stumble across an irregularity in archives, overhear an off-the-cuff comment of a politician or simply follow a hunch. As Kuciak’s and the other cases show, often political harassment and personal threats gnaw at the reporter’s morale. Sometimes, not even

violations of press freedom barometer 2018 Reporteurs Sans Frontières, 1.12.2018

28

the newspaper leadership can guarantee support for their writers, because they face too many repercussions from the state. But it is the press’ job to provide a check to the powers that be, and the job needs to be done. It sure does take braveness.

The protests in Slovakia did achieve the stepping down of President Fico and his cabinet.

The last time Slovakian protesters enforced this was in ’89 when Communism fell. Fico’s party remained in power, but many were gone from official roles. In November 2018, the police found a suspect.

Unsatisfied with the political response, many journalists and young people are now hoping that the judiciary will restore their faith in Slovakia. People in Bulgaria and Malta are still waiting.

But sometimes, it is not the politicians’ criminal activity that endangers journalists.

Sometimes, they move entirely within legality.

Legal Repression and Government Intimidation In international agreements, press freedom is secured by the right to free expression. Most national legal codes foresee that this right can be curtailed if public security concerns or hate speech arise. The problem is, those who define these terms gain control over limiting freedom of speech. Once the independence of a judiciary is under attack, press freedom is easily circumcised to push through a government agenda.

A prime case study is Turkey, where president Erdogan continuously tightens the muzzle on the press. Ever since a bloody coup-attempt in 2016, press freedom races towards the gutter of global rankings.

His measures include mass imprisonment, not only of national critics but also other countries’ citizens, for example German-Turkish reporter Deniz Yücel. Erdogan’s rhetoric illustrates the sophistication

were killed

63 journalists 13 citizens journalists 4 media assistents

of this type of threat against journalism. In parliament and the cabinet, he discredits dissidents as enemies of the Turkish interest and thus legally justifies his purges. According to RSF, “Turkey is the world’s biggest prison for media workers”.

Imprisonment is one way to intimidate journalists. Another is murder. Jamal Khashoggi was killed in October 2018, in Turkey, in the Saudi Arabian Consulate, at the hands of Saudi Agents. His brutal execution was met with a global media outcry, calling for actions against the Saudi Crown Prince. This is the most intense case of government intimidation. Khashoggi was not as much an investigative reporter as he was a critical commentator on Saudi Arabian affairs, working from both the US and the Middle East. Arguably, the Saudis had not so much to gain from the killing of his person than as they had from setting an example; “Dear critics, this is what happens, and we can reach you anywhere!”

Civil Society Failing the Press In a bizarre mirroring of Erdogan, the US White House recently declared the mainstream media as the “enemies of the people”. A historical person having used these words to describe the media was Stalin.

Recently, it was Trump in 2018.

Similar rhetoric is employed by multiple EU governments and far-right parties. This results in failures of civil society, once it translates this incitement into action.

In Germany, it is a frequent occurrence that anti-government protestors harass reporters covering their protest marches, most recently this happened in connection to a murder case in Leipzig in October. Similar incidents happen all over Western Europe.

The protesters echoed the language of far-right politicians.

Similar developments can be observed in the US. There,

imprisoned now 165 journalists 150 citizens journalists 18 media assistents

How can our lawmakers protect us from the encroachment on press freedom?

Unfortunately, politicians find themselves in a lose-lose situation. No matter how well-intended attempts are, usually regulating freedom of speech backfires. RSF has condemned French and German legislation that aims at stopping Fake News and online harassment as limiting freedom of expression. Arguably, the legislative should leave freedom of speech alone . Instead, civil society needs to be the corrective force. However, just because journalists are journalists, does not mean that they are saints and citizens must listen to them critically. Nonetheless, the plurality of opinion needs to be preserved by all sides.

Ultimately, press freedom reflects its societal and political environment.

Accordingly, if politicians make journalists’ lives harder, civil society needs to stand up as they did for Jan Kuciak. If civil society itself is detrimental to journalism’s health, then it is up to governments to make ethical, sober choices and not to be swayed by public outcries. It is up to young people to guarantee that in our future we will never become the cause of, or apathetic, to the silencing of critical voices. Because once the press falls quiet, we will have no idea what our governments have in store for us next.

Simon Pompé

SILENCE

Breaking the silence

Threats to European and Global Journalism

most viewers adhere religiously to the respective news channel of their political camp, either Fox News or CNN. The value of the other side’s input is completely disregarded. Apparently, parts of civil society have come to really see the media as its enemy.

Online, harassment of writers is at its loudest. As their headlines and stories are the most visible target, most attacks are directed to them. Thus, it takes additional courage to put one’s opinion out there.

Some regimes have picked up on this fact and employ armies of fake social media accounts that bully writers into silence or voice fake support for certain political figures. The most prominent accusation of this happening was during the 2016 American Elections, but similar trends are observed in the Philippines and during Europe’s national elections. We shall see what the effect of online harassment will be during the European Elections in May. The danger to democracy cannot be overemphasised. Public opinion should be pluralistic and diverse, but never should citizens start turning against each other.

The press is the articulation of public sentiment and silencing these outlets in a bizarre move of self-harm is the most ironic thing modern societies are currently doing. If you are unsatisfied with the state of politics, do not turn towards journalists, turn towards politicians. And fight for the right to let people say what you disagree with.

29

SOCIAL MEDIA

sin g es bl a

social media Carolin Lurz

a or e? rs cu

30

-

A

s Maastricht University students, we all have an intense workload.

Coming home after a long day with lectures, tutorials and late-night library sessions can be exhausting and there is hardly a better feeling than checking off that last point on your to-do list. But what do we do when we finally have some actual free time?

Well, many of us go online to social media to not miss out on what their friends are doing and on what is going on in the world. Before starting a new Netflix series, our guilty conscience might haunt us because we are not politically active enough. In order to feel better, we might take three minutes to quickly sign that petition our friend send us.

While believing that this actually helped, we finally dive into the world of Netflix and Co. But what was the original purpose of social media and how does that differ from reality?

How did social media change the relationships we have in the physical world? Can social media really help us to actually get involved in politics today?

Social media started out as a platform that offers the possibility to bring us – as an online community – closer together than ever before. We cannot only share moments, memories and photos with each other, but it is also supposed to enable us to build and maintain friendships. On top of that, social media provides us with the most important and breaking news. And let’s be honest: who still buys a newspaper today? Especially as an international student, it is not only difficult to find your home-countries’ newspapers but also way too expensive. From this perspective, social media appears to be a purely positive thing but what does reality really look like?

Although the original purpose of social media is to bring us closer together, it can awaken the opposite feelings in us.

Especially on days that are not as busy as usual, people tend to check their phones more regularly. Seeing their friends travelling to exotic places, going to parties they are not invited to or shopping with a sheer unlimited amount of money can make one quickly believe that one’s own life is comparably boring. Instead of closing apps like Instagram one stays online even longer and, in the end, we do not feel happy and closer connected but rather down and isolated.

Next to that there is the pressure to always present yourself in that perfect light on social media. We stage pictures and edit them afterwards to make us look even prettier and perfect. Butwhat happens to authenticity?

Most times, the pictures posted are hardly representative of the actual life lived. Bad feelings such as envy and fear of social isolation are felt daily. It is a vicious circle

– pushing the others to try to be even more perfect.

While a few years ago people still brought their lighters when going to a concert, today they all hold on to their smartphones and spend their time filming the musicians instead of actually enjoying the music and soaking in the atmosphere.

Were we even there if we did not post it in our stories? In accordance with the motto: ‘the pictures prove it happened’, stories are omnipresent today.

One could fear that we are rapidly approaching a point where it will be possible to spend more time documenting our daily lives than actually living them.

For some teenagers, this pressure for perfectionism became too harsh and the idea of two different Instagram accounts was established.

On the one hand, there is the so-called ‘Finstagram’ – the fake Instagram where people post their staged and unauthentic pictures for a large number of followers in public accounts.

While on the other hand, there is ‘Rinstagram’ – the real Instagram. ‘Rinstagram’ accounts are usually private accounts that are set up in addition to the main accounts.

Access is only granted to a few chosen followers and follower numbers are generally kept in low double figures. On these accounts, young people post their most private and intimate emotions such as tears and chaos. Here they are supposed to find relief from the picture-perfect presentation of their lives that is necessitated or rather demanded by a following of hundreds. When critically scrutinizing this development, the question

appears whether this could be just another method of Instagram to inflate its user numbers, after already reaching the goal of 1 billion users this summer. On top of that, the addition of another internet presence on which to seem more natural and less effortful sounds exhausting.

Another danger of social media is that we are jeopardizing our privacy by disclosing very sensitive information in order to get more likes and views. For teenagers growing up today, it is normal to reveal the place of living, the age, the last name and many more highly private things. This is especially dangerous when their profiles are public, and everybody has access to these intimate aspects of their lives. Posting a picture in which one only wears underwear has become normal. What has previously been unimaginable has now become commonplace.

But then, if social media really bears the risk of social isolation, envy, the disclosure of sensitive information and the neglect of actual relationships in the physical world, how can we stop excessive use? And how can we turn these ‘asocial’ media into social media? A first step would be to use it less often and to delete unnecessary apps.

You should ask yourself: why do I have this app, how much time do I spend on it and could I rather do something better and more meaningful. For many apps such as Instagram, you can turn on notifications to set a maximum of time that you want to spend online.

As soon as the time limit is reached, you will be reminded.

This is a great opportunity for

becoming more aware of how much time one spends or rather wastes online. Next time you are in a restaurant with your friends, you could rather leave your phone in your pocket and spend your time wisely by having interesting conversations and discussions. The world is outside, not on the screen. To come back to the original idea of social media, you could try to be more honest and authentic when using it.

There are already a few brave people out there who honestly talk about how social media got them to believe that they are not pretty, sporty, smart or rich enough and – as a consequence – suffered from serious illnesses such as anorexia and depressions. This is already a good starting-point but by far not enough. If everyone has the courage to show who they really are, and that life has its ups and downs, the vicious circle could finally be stopped.

Let’s control social media ourselves and not let it control our lives and happiness.

Now let’s acknowledge the fact that there are other things on social media that matter as well and that can be far more important than living in that picture-perfect bubble. Through social networks, many people try to be politically active. They do not only follow the news but also use it for discussions and participate in petitions. In general, social media can be quite a good place to start if you want to get involved into politics. One can, for instance, reach thousands of like-minded people. The question, however, arises whether social media really should be the only place to be politically active. Just because you are active online does not directly

imply that you are active in general and that your actions have a meaningful impact or consequences. We shall try to not become too comfortable and sterilized to contribute to the well-functioning of our society. Today, you can already voice your opinion with a few clicks. You do not even need to go outside to talk to people but can do it all conveniently from your couch at home without needing to put much time and effort into it. But is that really comparable to actively trying to take action in the physical world by going on the streets, handing out flyers and trying to persuade people to sign your own petition? Probably not, right?

Social media can be a great tool for mobilising people for political events that take place in the physical world such as demonstrations. Protests have way more impact and meaning than just anonymously voicing your opinion online. This might be uncomfortable, but it offers the possibility to make a change as it is way more impressive when several thousand-people come out onto the streets to fight together for values they strongly care about. People talk a lot on social media, but they do not have real conversations. To say it with the lyrics of Sound of Silence: “people talking without speaking, people hearing without listening”. We need people who do not cringe as soon as they have to get out of their comfort zone. It is important that we all become aware of the risk of being sterilized by social media. Civil society needs to stay involved. #backtooldschool

31

curiosity creating curiosity Ceren Cingi

32

H

umans have been observing nature to mimic and adapt its features to produce and improve new gadgets for centuries. The acts of creation and invention are triggered by questioning and wondering about future possibilities given the current situation, in other words through curiosity.

Curiosity is seen as a fundamental human trait and it is a motivator for learning, decision making, and development. One of the products of human curiosity is artificial intelligence (AI) and recently scientists have been examining the human brain to enhance machines via neurodynamic programming. Machines are getting more intelligent and faster in decision making, but it does not directly correspond to gaining absolute critical thinking or human characteristics.

However, the development of artificial curiosity is aiming to replicate human curiosity with an algorithm that tests new actions against randomness and tries to find the optimal answers to ‘What if?’ questions. Does this mean that the traits which are assigned as fundamentally human characteristics will not only be found in humans in near future?

In recent years, various research has observed and modelled children’s behaviour to understand human reasoning, learning, and questioning.

The data from these studies is turned into thinking patterns and used to create an intrinsic curiosity model. Machines use this model when they are confronted with a choice. The intrinsic curiosity model functions based on feedback signals. The AI algorithm considers the cumulative effects of all the possible decisions to generate feedback signals. To write such an artificial curiosity algorithm, data scientists use the Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) technique to translate neural networks into programming codes. First, the DRL sets a relevant time frame for the decision; then it assigns credits for successful outcomes and penalties for unsuccessful ones.

The algorithm takes actions depending

on the environment and gets feedback in the form rewards and observations.

This process is repeated continuously to evaluate the results of different choices.

By evaluating the various choices and attributing a value to each of them AI is enabled to predict the outcome of the choices. Comparing the different outcomes AI makes the optimal choice by selecting the maximum outcome value.

It has been said that humans are the smartest species in the world because of the human brain and its cognitive abilities. But what happens if these characteristics are being applied to AI? Curiosity is one of those fundamental human traits and yet the machines are already being encouraged towards complex learning and thinking to make critical decisions. Maybe artificial curiosity is not truly the same as human curiosity, but it is definitely replicating the basic principles behind it. Although there are some differences, these are not necessarily in favour of humans.

There is a variance in processing speed of the AI and the human brain as well as a difference in input and output evaluation time. By considering the acceleration in algorithm development rates, it is feasible to say that AI will be able to perform more operations and process data faster than humans.

In terms of input both humans and machines are able to gather information rapidly; but when it comes to operating and executing that data, machines are quicker to create an output than humans.

As the development of AI continues to improve in this rate, first the machines will be equipped with more algorithms replicating human traits. Second, the gap between the computing speed and the range of processed data between AI and the human brain will increase in favour

TRANSHUMANISM

of the machines. In such a case would it still be plausible to say that humans are the smartest beings on Earth?

Computer software programmes and algorithms are being upgraded frequently. Then, isn’t it important to find a way to upgrade humankind to ensure humans as a species will stay relevantly intelligent in the future? The world is changing; the situations and beings around humans are evolving. In a dynamic environment, it is not possible to be closed to change and expect to stay in the same superior position. Maybe it is not true to say superior, but a more suitable phrasing is to stay in harmony.

If the levels of change are not balanced, maintaining harmony is not imaginable.

Transhumanism can provide a different perspective for the possible improvements on human capabilities.

As explained by Max More: Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.

Human curiosity is a part of human nature and now it is influencing the creation of artificial curiosity. The development of AI has a potential to change the balance of who or what is the smartest. To be able to harmonize with this alternated nature, humankind have to consider that they might not be at the end state of their development. Transhumanism supports embracing the full potential of what humans can become and encourages the use of technological improvements to boost the human bodies and minds.

This way, as AI keeps developing to its future versions, human beings can evolve towards their higher potentials and become an upgraded version of what it is called ‘human’.

THE SOLDIERS OF TOMORROW Marie-Sophie Silan

Far from idealistic visions of cute robots gently caring for the elderly or of fully autonomous cars chauffeuring themselves around highly technological cities, the recent and ever-accelerating development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) hides another, darker issue.

Autonomous Weapons ((L) AWS), which are better known by an increasingly cynical public as “killer robots” regardless of their actual lethality (or non-lethality), are currently under test worldwide with

34

superpowers such as Russia, China, and the US progressively constituting their own artillery. While the use of robots in conflicts is nothing new, the emergence of these machines capable of taking action independent of human supervision, including pulling a trigger on the battlefield, represents a significant change in the way we make war and raises crucial legal and ethical issues.

ternational community to take preventive action against Autonomous Weapons, with little progress made so far. Since 2013, the ONG Human Rights Watch has raised awareness worldwide through its “Stop Killer Robots” campaign. The United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons (UNCCW) Group of Experts, which had suggested a complete ban on fully autonomous weapons, met for the first time in SepFor a few years now, there tember 2017 to start discussing has been a call within the in- the matter officially. Currently,

26 countries are in favour of a ban and almost all participating nations which are parties to the Convention agree that only robots over which humans can keep “meaningful” control should be authorised. What this means precisely, however, is still unclear and will require further debate.

Moreover, a more specific definition of precisely what kind of bots could be subject to the ban would be very welcome: indeed, today, semi-autonomous

WA R F A R E robots are already used in conflict zones, like the infamous drones (aka UAV, ‘uninhabited aerial vehicle’) or more recent machines such as the US military’s MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper (whose names alone would make it very hard to defend a case in favour of military robots). Even though they are not programmed to ‘seek and destroy’, since they ultimately still need to be allowed to open fire by a human, the reality is that under dire battlefield conditions the human ‘in the loop’ usually makes a decision exclusively based on the information they receive from the machine. Despite these semi-autonomous weapons being potentially as dangerous as fully autonomous ‘killer robots’, and despite the Human Rights Watch fiercely advocating against their production and deployment, they will probably not be banned anytime soon.

Coming back to the concept of fully autonomous machines: at this point, what are the arguments in their favour? Conversely, what arguments can be made in favour of their complete ban? Philosopher Ronald Arkin, their most famous pro-

ponent, argues that the production of LAWS could actually change war for the better. In his view, the fact that robots have neither feelings nor a conscience makes them immune to any violent human impulse, such as the will to avenge a fallen comrade or, in the worst of cases, to rape a civilian.

Ironically enough, according to Arkin, military robots have the potential to make war more respectful of human values.

On the other side, “killer robot” haters are not short of counter arguments. The one most frequently invoked argument is that allowing a machine to decide whether someone has to live or die is morally wrong in itself. In my opinion, this argument, though powerful, loses sight of the essential problem.

Namely, the mere existence and perpetuation of war. Is recognising that we would rather have people killing other people, than machines doing our dirty work for us, perhaps a failure to admit that war is, and will always be, inevitable?

More than just inevitable, is war not also profoundly human?

Miles away from those ethical considerations, some argue that the ability to replace human soldiers with robots could lead to a constant state of warfare, since making war would be easier, cheaper and less likely subject to public – and voter – approval, since conflict would not cause as many human casualties as seen previously. I would add that, unfortunately, the obligation to produce technologically advanced robots to take part in conflicts will likely lead to new types of division between richer or more dominant countries, and poorer countries.

A last argument against LAWS is that they would not be able to comply with the three most essential principles of International Humanitarian Law. That is, the law of armed conflicts, which is as follows: the principle of distinction, the principle of precaution and the principle of proportionality. Distinction and precaution, first, require the soldier to be able to distinguish between other bel-

ligerents and civilians. Many fear that robots lack such perception, and could, for instance, attack a civilian who is holding a weapon, thinking he’s an enemy to tear down.

Proportionality, then, could be problematic once the purpose of the ongoing conflict is, besides winning, to convince local populations of the invader’s good intentions for their country. Robots may win a war, but, at least at this point in time, they are definitely too numb to win anyone’s heart and mind.

So far, “killer robots” have more enemies than friends on their side. The adoption of a ban, however, is currently compromised at international level. Russia, for instance, does not seem ready to give up on testing new prototypes and even stated that it was one of its objectives to completely withdraw human soldiers from conflict zones in the near future. Were this position to be maintained, a new arms race between superpowers could soon begin. Worries ahead…

35