Humanities & Cultures

Cross posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/18167942

Archived

For the past few decades, China has boasted about its population as its defining strength for economic advancement and consolidating its global influence. But now the tides are turning.

[...]

China is grappling with a rapidly aging population that poses serious social and economic challenges. By 2050, the elderly (60 and above) will make up 33% of the population, up from 12% in 2010, making it the oldest population in the world. This shift drives healthcare costs and dependency ratios while creating labor shortages. These shortages are raising wages, which undermines the country’s economic competitiveness. Compounding the issue, China is aging relatively lowly, complicating its transition to a high-income economy.

The One-Child Policy has played a significant role in this crisis, leaving China with a “top-heavy" population pyramid where older generations outnumber younger ones. Fewer young people mean fewer caregivers for the elderly, both within families and the healthcare sector, and a shrinking workforce to sustain the economy. Gender imbalance is another consequence. Decades of sex-selective abortions and infanticide have led to 35 million more men than women, making it difficult for many men to marry and have children. Studies also indicate that the generation of only-child boys often faces behavioral issues, showing less trust, competitiveness, and conscientiousness compared to peers.

The economic implications are severe. A shrinking workforce slows growth and reduces tax revenues, while an expanding elderly population drives up pension costs. To manage this, China has increased the retirement age—from 60 to 63 for men, 55 to 58 for white-collar women, and 50 to 55 for blue-collar women. These changes aim to ease the strain on pensions but don’t fully resolve the challenges posed by a rapidly aging and shrinking population.

[...]

Colonialists did what colonialists do. They came, they claimed, they took what they wanted and they moved on. They left behind pieces of their sunken ships, and the new names they gave these old places — the same places Hawaiians had frequented for hundreds of years before Westerners arrived, places for which they had their own names, preserved in chants passed down through generations.

But the times are changing with a movement to restore the original names of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which since 2006 have been protected as part of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.

It began from the ground up, according to Randy Kosaki, the monument’s deputy superintendent for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A handful of Native Hawaiian scientists started using the original Hawaiian names for these islands in their research papers, and it’s caught on.

Now, federal agencies like NOAA print maps with both Hawaiian and Western names. Pearl and Hermes Atoll is also labeled as Manawai, French Frigate Shoals as Lalo, Necker as Mokumanamana.

On NOAA’s most recent research expedition to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the mix of scientists from Hawaiʻi and the mainland almost exclusively used the Hawaiian names when discussing where they were diving and surveying the reefs. That wasn’t the case on trips even a few years earlier.

The nonprofit organization now overseeing global Little Free Libraries finds the nonbook knockoffs “fun and flattering,” communications director Margret Aldrich says in an email. (She also notes “Little Free Library” is a trademarked name, requiring permission if used for money or “in an organized way.”)

Some libraries stress fundamental needs: A recently established Little Free Failure of Capitalism in South Seattle provides feminine products, soap, chargers, even Narcan. A Columbia City Little Free Pantry established by personal chef Molly Harmon grew into a statewide network for neighbors supporting neighbors.

Others are about the little things: Yarn. Jigsaw puzzles and children’s toys. Keychains (one keychain library in Hillman City has a TikTok account delighting 8,000+ followers). A Little Free Nerd Library holds Rubik’s Cubes and comic books.

Regardless of where each library falls on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, they stand on common ground. “There’s a line from [Khalil] Gibran: ‘Work is love made visible,’ ” Little Library Guy says in a phone call. “That’s what they’re doing. They’re showing that they love the community by doing something for them.”

This gets a bit into the linguistic weeds, and if you're familiar with Dutch or High German, the errors are somewhat comical, especially with SVO vs. SOV. But overall an interesting exploration and distraction.

[...]coyote time makes me think of teaching and learning. It makes me think of all the times we demand precision from students – both in terms of timing and performance. It makes me think of how it would feel for students to have grace windows and large error bars in acceptable performance. It makes me think of the many students who, when they try to run and jump, instead fall into a pit of spikes because they were just a little off.

Celeste is still a very challenging game, but by adding in coyote time (and many other forgiveness mechanics like it), the developers keep it from feeling frustrating and punishing. This is what I hope our courses strive for: stretching students and challenging them without arbitrarily punishing them for not being perfect.

This is a delicate balance to achieve. In moments of tension between challenge and forgiveness, I tend to prefer forgiveness. After all, tolerance for error is one of the key tenets of Universal Design. However, I think games can teach us a lot about how to design experiences that are challenging and yet still work to minimize the consequences of errors, mistakes, and imperfections.

In this post, I’ll explore a few other forgiveness-adjacent game mechanics similar to coyote time. I won’t be suggesting specific teaching practices. Rather, I’ll discuss what I think these mechanics illuminate about the experience of playing a challenging yet forgiving game. By looking outside the world of teaching and learning for inspiration, I hope that we can think creatively about how to create the best possible experience for students. While I may mention a few teaching practices that come to mind, I will mostly be leaving the connections to you, dear reader.

Let’s dive in.

Like many people raised in a white Western settler culture, I was a self-righteous skeptic who’d been taught that plants, animals, and any other other-than-human entities were barely sentient and less than; meant to be used or dominated, not befriended, let alone viewed as equals. (Even the domesticated animals we consider family in most Western cultures are treated, to some extent, as objects we “own.”) I was human, elevated, civilized; everything else was nature, base, uncivilized. This was the inviolable order of things—until, of course, I put my hand on that tree, and definitively learned that it wasn’t.

There was nothing original about my “discovery.” The idea that everyone and every “thing” is alive, has inherent worth, and is interconnected is integral to communities and cosmologies across space and time. In many indigenous languages, there isn’t even a word for “nature” as some discrete, static entity. Quite the opposite: Aboriginal Australians’ conception of Country comprises a “sentient landscape” of waterways, air, land, humans, other-than-humans, ancestors, and their relationships—a way of being and relating so complex and antithetical to dualistic thinking that it threatens to blow the White Western mind.

It would take an ego death and a spiritual rebirth for me to allow it to change mine, and a healthy dose of decolonization to see just how profoundly lonely my anthropocentric individualism had made me. Luckily, a whole world of friends awaited me on the other side.

First, this seemed to be the best community to place this. Second, this is an older article [February 2024] but it is very interesting nonetheless.

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, cultural life in Russia has endured a new wave of censorship. The government bans not only works of art — films, plays, songs — but also the artists themselves. Literature, of course, is no exception. The Russian authorities have designated writers as “foreign agents” and “terrorists,” charging them with felonies and ordering their books pulled from the shelves in stores and libraries. Many have been forced to leave the country or cease public activities.

Abroad, this has led to the revival of tamizdat: several new publishing houses [...] are releasing books that cannot be printed in Russia. Despite these challenges, work that tackles today’s reality is still being written and sold in Russia. This includes books about what has upended Russian society in recent years: the war in Ukraine. Meduza special correspondent Kristina Safonova explores how this remains possible.

[...]

Officially, there’s no censorship in Russia. However, there are prohibited subjects designated in a growing body of laws adopted by the federal government.

• “You can’t talk about war — no matter which war it is,” says Z., the editor-in-chief of a publishing house. “Even with the Great Patriotic War [the Soviet fronts of the Second World War], you can’t say anything unless it’s praising the heroic deeds of Russian and Soviet soldiers.”
• “Anything at all can be labeled as [LGBTQ+] propaganda,” says E., an editor at a publishing house, explaining that an entire print run can be pulled because of a secondary character who “acts flamboyantly” or says something like, “My parents will never accept my choice.”
• “If characters smoke weed and don’t shout about how disgusting it is and all die before the page ends, you risk getting flagged for [drug] propaganda,” adds editor I.

[...]

Doctors said for Kilmartin to qualify for a kidney transplant, he’d have to lose 100 pounds, and obey a strict diet, one with hard-to-understand restrictions about components like phosphates and phosphorus. Too drained to cook, too overwhelmed by the cost of relying exclusively on takeout, and feeling guilty about burdening his worried wife, he turned to MANNA, the 35-year-old nonprofit that provides free, medically-tailored meals (MTMs) and education about how nutrition affects health conditions to Philadelphians who need it.

MANNA’s positive impact is more than anecdotal. Last month, the journal BMC Nutrition released research by The MANNA Institute, the research arm of MANNA, showing that its clients achieved a “significant decrease in malnutrition risk” and meaningful changes in conditions like diabetes and hypertension. ​​”This is the first of its kind,” explains Jule Anne Henstenburg, PhD, director of The MANNA Institute. “There has never been research involving an in-depth evaluation of a functioning medically tailored meal program.”

Among other compelling findings: Of the clients at risk for malnutrition when starting the program, 56 percent experienced a clinically significant reduction in malnutrition risk by program finish; 62 percent of clients with hypertension reduced their blood pressure by five or more units; among clients with diabetes, median hemoglobin A1C dropped from 8.3 percent to 7.7 percent, indicating improved blood sugar control. Body mass index (BMI) remained stable or decreased for 88 percent of clients who started the program with obesity.

The documentary and its accompanying book, New Wave: Rebellion and Reinvention in the Vietnamese Diaspora (2024), rewrites the narrative of Vietnamese Americans after the war in advance of the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon. Western popular culture has historically represented the Vietnamese people as either victims (refugees from the South) or enemies (communists from the North), gangsters or model minorities, leaving little room for nuance in depicting the experience of the over 45 million people who were forced to flee their home country. For refugees born in Vietnam who came to the United States between the ages of five and 12, or the so-called “1.5 Generation,” music allowed an escape from the binary between home and school, where they were pressured to uphold Vietnamese traditions and assimilate into American culture simultaneously.

Two new research papers challenge that view. Using creative new methods, they find that the costs Walmart imposes in the form of not only lower earnings but also higher unemployment in the wider community outweigh the savings it provides for shoppers. On net, they conclude, Walmart makes the places it operates in poorer than they would be if it had never shown up at all. Sometimes consumer prices are an incomplete, even misleading, signal of economic well-being.

Their conclusion: In the 10 years after a Walmart Supercenter opened in a given community, the average household in that community experienced a 6 percent decline in yearly income—equivalent to about $5,000 a year in 2024 dollars—compared with households that didn’t have a Walmart open near them. Low-income, young, and less-educated workers suffered the largest losses.

Maaherra freely admitted she had copied The Urantia Book verbatim and defended her actions with a curious legal argument. Authorship, she contended, was something only humans could possess; since the papers were a direct transcription of the infallible revelations of an ensemble of celestial beings, the notions of authorship and copyright didn’t apply. The case reached the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, which ruled against her. Without questioning the extraterrestrial origins of the book’s revelations—both parties agreed about that, after all—the judges ruled that the utterances had been mediated by human beings before they reached print, constituting just enough of a human element to trigger authorship protections under the relevant copyright statute.

The court emphasized one kind of mediation, in particular: Sadler and the Forum “chose and formulated the specific questions asked.” These questions, the judges reasoned, “materially contributed to the structure of the Papers, to the arrangement of the revelations in each Paper, and to the organization and order in which the Papers followed one another.” Thus they found that “the ‘extremely low’ threshold level of creativity required for copyright protection has been met.”

[...] The prompt engineers who compiled The Urantia Book may have set a legal precedent for copyright in AI-generated works; Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra has already been cited in early AI cases in the United States. The legal battles over AI currently playing out—and the large number still to come—may profoundly impact the balance of wealth and power in countless democracies in the decades ahead.

For an idea of the scale of the prize, it’s worth remembering that 90 percent of recent U.S. economic growth, and 65 percent of the value of its largest 500 companies, is already accounted for by intellectual property. By any estimate, AI will vastly increase the speed and scale at which new intellectual products can be minted. The provision of AI services themselves is estimated to become a trillion-dollar market by 2032, but the value of the intellectual property created by those services—all the drug and technology patents; all the images, films, stories, virtual personalities—will eclipse that sum. It is possible that the products of AI may, within my lifetime, come to represent a substantial portion of all the world’s financial value.

In this light, the question of ownership takes on its true scale, revealing itself as a version of Bertolt Brecht’s famous query: To whom does the world belong?

As of this writing, AI companies have largely responded to lawsuits with defensiveness and evasion, refusing in most cases even to divulge what exact corpora of text their models are trained on. Some newspapers, less sure they can beat the AI companies, have opted to join them: the Financial Times, for one, minted a “strategic partnership” with OpenAI in April, while in July Perplexity launched a revenue-sharing “publisher’s program” that now counts Time, Fortune, Texas Tribune, and WordPress.com among its partners.

At the heart of these disputes, the input problem asks: Is it fair to train the LLMs on all that copyrighted text without remunerating the humans who produced it? The answer you’re likely to give depends on how you think about LLMs.

Your opinion on the input problem may come down to your view of the true nature of LLMs. Critics of generative AI tend to view its way of answering questions as only an elaborate cut-and-paste job performed on material written by humans—incapable even of showing genuine understanding of what it says, let alone of any Senecan transformation of what it reads. This view is forcefully articulated in the now-famous characterization of LLMs as “stochastic parrots” by Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. Boosters of the technology dispute this view—or counter that, if accurate, it also serves just as well to characterize the way human beings produce language. (As cartoonist Angie Wang wondered: “Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?”)

AI developers will doubtless argue that they need to be able to exploit the products of their models in order to incentivize innovation; licensors will argue that they need to be financially rewarded for all their efforts in fine-tuning AI models to produce the kind of outputs they seek. Hollywood studios will ask: How can we put AI to use in generating marvelous images for the whole family to enjoy if any Tom, Dick, or Harry can “steal” the characters, plots, and graphics it generates for us? How can we devote our expertise in fine-tuning AIs to design drugs, pharmaceutical companies will crow, if we can’t recoup our investment by controlling the market with intellectual property protections? These industries are extremely skilled in influencing the legal frameworks under which they operate; their efforts to strengthen and extend their intellectual property rights have resulted in a staggering and unequivocal series of victories. How can we expect the public domain, which has no financial heft, no army of lawyers, no investors and no lobbyists, to compete with that?

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/17772988

A helpful guide on how to be less frustrating towards people of color.

Unlike for alcohol or heroin, there are no targeted medications to help drug users wean off stimulants like cocaine and methamphetamine. While the deadly opioid crisis might make more headlines, 65 percent of drug-related deaths in California now involve stimulants, especially meth. Deaths from these kinds of stimulants more than quadrupled between 2011 and 2019, and the number of amphetamine-related E.R. visits increased nearly 50 percent between 2018 and 2020, according to an analysis by the Oakland nonprofit California Health Care Foundation. Therefore the state is urgently looking for new ways to rein in the drug crisis, and in early 2023, it began the controversial experiment: paying people to stay sober. This could be one part of the puzzle in securing an unexpected outcome: For the first time in decades, overdose deaths have plummeted by 10 percent between April 2023 and April 2024.

Two dozen counties, including San Francisco, Los Angeles and Orange, are participating in the “recovery incentive” or “contingency management,” as it’s called. The state has allocated $60 million for the pilot phase. The 24-week program essentially uses positive reinforcement with the aim of readjusting people’s brains so they associate being sober with gratification. After each negative drug test, they receive a reward. For the first negative test, they get a gift card in the amount of $10, for the second $11.50, up to $26 or a total of $599 (because any amount larger than that needs to be reported to the IRS). It is part of a bigger initiative, CalAIM, to connect the most vulnerable and high-need citizens with resources and non-traditional benefits in a whole-person approach.

Most importantly, when clients test positive, there are no negative consequences. They simply don’t get their reward and drop back to the initial $10 the next time they deliver a negative test. “If they test positive, we take it as an opportunity to engage with them,” Duff explains. “We say, ‘We’re glad you’re here. Let’s sit down and talk about what happened.’ The goal is to keep them completely engaged. The longer they stay talking to a counselor, the better off their chances in the long run.”

But we assumed that they were male, to the point that we named one Rudolph.

Where does this myth come from, is it harmless, and what does it say about us?

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/17644126

Archived version (South China Morning Post)

A Chinese professor has sparked a public backlash after he asked a visiting Kazakh diplomat how to make Chinese women “have children obediently, early and in large numbers” at a think tank event.

Wang Xianju, a professor at Renmin University and a former counsellor at the Chinese embassy in Belarus, was speaking to Erlan Qarin, the state counsellor of Kazakhstan, who visited the university in November.

Qarin had given a speech on Kazakhstan’s domestic reforms and relations between the two countries at an event hosted by the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, a think tank based at the university.

The institute published Wang’s remarks on its WeChat account in November but the article only gained online traction – and criticism – this week. It has since been deleted.

During the question-and-answer period, Wang said he was surprised to find there were many children when he visited Kazakhstan.

He said Kazakhstan apparently had effective policies encouraging births, and he wondered how that might be possible, given that Chinese women did not want to get married and have children, and would not listen to their parents or supervisors.

“I even heard that women in Kazakhstan immediately have children after they graduate college, they have children one after another,” Wang said in a now-deleted WeChat article by the think tank.

“How could they listen to you and obediently, submissively have children, have children early and have lots of children?”

Once upon a time, Nova Gorica and Gorizia were one; the two cities were created – and separated – in 1947 after World War Two when the Treaty of Paris established Europe's new borders, restricting travel between Italy and the former Yugoslavia. An Allied commission determined that Gorizia should belong to Italy and the less-developed part of town should be part of the Slovenian republic within the Socialist Federalist Republic of Yugoslavia. The new town was to be called Nova Gorica (New Gorizia), and from that moment on, Nova Gorica and Gorizia have existed as two towns split across two countries.

But with Slovenia's entry into the EU in 2004, the border between them was dissolved, allowing a cross-cultural exchange for the first time in generations. And in 2025, Gorizia/Nova Gorica will reunite as the first transnational European Capital of Culture, in a project called GO!2025.

It was difficult to choose where to throw this.

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/17544837

Archived

The term “revenge society,” or “revenge against society,” is used in China to refer to acts of violence against innocent civilians committed in blind desperation by those on the bottom rung of society to protest social and political injustices for which there seems no recourse. Emerging online in the early 2000s, the term has been applied in both mainstream (CCP-led) news coverage and online discourse to random attacks on unsuspecting victims, generally in cases where the perpetrators are thought to have disadvantaged and precarious positions economically and socially.

On November 11, 2024, dozens of Chinese were killed and many more injured as a 62-year-old driver unhappy about a divorce settlement plowed his car into a stadium in the southern city of Zhuhai, running down people on the sports track. Just five days later, eight people were killed and 17 wounded in a knife attack on the campus of a vocational school in Yixing, in Jiangsu province, a city famed since ancient times for its clay teapots. The suspect was reportedly enraged because he had failed an exam and not received his graduation certificate.

These cases were merely the latest in a string of brutal attacks in China killing scores of people in the fall of 2024. Collectively, they brought renewed discussion over a period of weeks of a phenomenon that has been a feature of Chinese media coverage of such cases since at least the 1990s — “social revenge” (报复社会). Not used in other Chinese-language contexts such as Taiwan and Hong Kong, “social revenge,” or “revenge against society,” is the idea that assailants, particularly from the disaffected ranks of society, have perpetrated attacks against innocent people in a desperate bid to air their grievances.

...

The term “revenge society” was regularly used through the 2000s. In August 2005, after a 42-year-old farmer with terminal lung cancer set off a homemade explosive on a bus in the city of Fuzhou, injuring 31 people, the magazine Lifeweekly (三联生活周刊) called the incident “individual terrorism” (一个人的恐怖主义), but noted that the incident did not clearly fit the pattern of “revenge against society.” People discussing the case, it noted, had been “unable to find the actual rationalization behind his social revenge” (却找不到他报复社会真实).

The term often seemed a way to frame or make sense of cases of incredible and sometimes mysterious brutality — particularly against the backdrop of a controlled media environment in which it was difficult to openly discuss many of the objective social factors behind these cases, including labor rights violations, forced demolition, and migrant discrimination.

...

The late 2000s was still a time of relative discursive space for China’s press, though always under the watchful eye of Chinese Communist Party “guidance.” In its own, indirect way, China Youth Daily was suggesting that more responsibility should be placed on the government in such cases, implying that poor governance, and failing rule of law, were factors behind issues of social injustice. “When revenge is committed against society, the government should understand that it can change society and transform it through good governance to achieve social justice at a higher level,” the newspaper wrote.

...

A glimpse at medieval western European astronomy, following a Roman theory that Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun and how it influenced Copernicus's heliocentric model a millennium later.

Archived

China is urging colleges and universities to provide "love education" to emphasise positive views on marriage, love, fertility and family, in a bid to boost the country's flagging birth rate.

Beijing has been promoting various measures to try to make having children more attractive to young couples after China posted a second consecutive year of population decline in 2023.

China has the second-biggest population in the world at 1.4 billion, but it is ageing quickly, which will increase the demands on government spending in the future and put pressure on the economy.

College students will be the biggest driver of fertility but they have significantly changed their views on marriage and love, the Jiangsu Xinhua newspaper group said, citing China Population News, an official publication.

[...]

The measures would help create a "healthy and positive marriage and childbearing cultural atmosphere."

[...]

The state council, or cabinet, rallied local governments in November to direct resources towards fixing China's population decline and spread respect for childbearing and marriages "at the right age," although demographers said the moves were unlikely to resonate with young Chinese.

Around 57% of college students polled by China Population News said they did not want to fall in love, mainly because they did not know how to allocate time to balance the relationship between study and love, the publication said.

[...]

Universities could focus on teaching junior college students about population and national conditions, new marriage and childbearing concepts, it said.

Senior college students and graduate students could be taught through "case analysis, group discussion on maintaining intimate relationships and communication between the sexes."

The courses would be able to help them "improve their ability to correctly understand marriage and love and manage love relationships."

A girl who attends a school with classmates whose mothers work is more likely to be in the workforce when she has a child herself than a girl who grows up in local circles where most mothers stay at home, Cornell researchers have found.

“Role models pull girls in different directions in adolescence, a period when preferences are formed, when they decide what to do in their life,” said Eleonora Patacchini, the Stephen and Barbara Friedman Professor of Economics in the College of Arts and Sciences. “When they decide whether to return to work after having a child, they remember the mothers and fathers of their peers.”

Women trail men in the workforce largely because of the “child penalty” – women leaving work upon having a child and not returning. Social norms and culture influence a girls’ later decisions about participation in the work force; when she looked into precisely how, Patacchini, with doctoral student Giulia Olivero and Henrik Kleven, professor of economics at Princeton University, found that greater exposure to working moms at a very local level – the school – decreases the child penalty for girls. Meanwhile, exposure to working fathers increases the child penalty, a “striking” asymmetric effect, Patacchini said.

Girls who are socialized in an environment where most mothers work are more likely to develop a gender-role ideal that reconciles career and motherhood, they conjecture, compared with girls who are socialized in an environment where most mothers stay at home.

...