Search

This report describes the process of the co-creation of the TechEthos game that was developed to enhance the TechEthos scenarios (Task 3.2) during dedicated workshops in (Task 3.3). It also presents the results of employing the Triadic Game Design methodology as an approach to working with expert game design stakeholders across the dedicated workshops in order to resolve emerging value tensions in game design. The game resulting from the co-creation activities with expert stakeholders will be used in conjunction with the TechEthos scenarios (Task 3.2) and both expert and citizen participants (Task 3.4 and 3.5) to surface ethical issues and concerns in those scenarios and, consequently, helping to enhance the scenarios in order to be more comprehensive in their breadth. This report was co-developed in parallel with D3.1 (Evolution of advanced TechEthos scenarios) to advance the TechEthos basic scenarios via the design and deployment of a co-designed serious game., {"references":["Buchinger E., Kinegger M., Zahradnik G., Bernstein M.J., Porcari A., Gonzalez G., Pimponi D., Buceti G. (2022). TechEthos technology portfolio: Assessment and final selection of economically and ethically high impact technologies. Deliverable 1.2 to the European Commission. TechEthos Project Deliverable. Available at: www.techethos.eu.","Candy, S. (2018). Gaming futures literacy: The thing from the future. In Transforming the future (pp. 233-246). Routledge.","Clare, T. (2018). The Champion of the Wild. Oxford, UK: Big Imagination Games.","Duke, R. D., & Geurts, J. (2004). Policy games for strategic management: pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.","Friedman, B., Nathan, L., Kane, S., & Lin, J. (2011). Envisioning Cards. Seattle: University of Washington","Harteveld, C. (2010). Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play. TGD, Retrieved 12 May 2022. https://web.northeastern.edu/casperharteveld/tgd/tgd.html","Harteveld, C. (2011). Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play. London: Springer Science & Business Media.","NANO2ALL (n.d.-a). National Multi Stakeholder Dialogues - Moderator Manual. NANO2ALL Project resource. Retrieved from http://www.nano2all.eu/resources/nano2all-dialogue-materials-and-results/","NANO2ALL (n.d.-b). Scenario Exploration Game - Instructions. NANO2ALL Project resource. Retrieved from http://www.nano2all.eu/resources/nano2all-dialogue-materials-and-results/","Roubira, J., & Cardouat, M. (2008). Dixit. San Martino in Rio: Asterion Press. Retrieved from https://www.asmodee.it/giochi_dixit.php","Tiemersma, S., Freese, M., & Boschma, D. (2021). Cards for Biosafety. Delft: Rathenau Instituut, Lis Consult, NWO. Retrieved from https://seriousgaming.tudelft.nl/game/cards-for-biosafety"]}

Technology is no stranger to the city. Cities are planned, built, maintained, governed, demolished, and destroyed by technical means. Yet, the city has yet to receive much attention within the philosophy of technology. This volume addresses this gap, and in doing so contributes to the much-needed discussion on technology-enabled urban futures from the perspective of the philosophy of technology. In this introductory chapter, the larger volume is introduced by reflecting on the rationale and need for such a collection, sketching the main themes analyzed throughout, and providing an overview of the contributions.

Due primarily to technological advances over the last decade, quantum research has become a key priority area for science and technology policy all over the world. With this manifesto we wish to prevent quantum technology from running into fiascos of implementation at the interface of science and society. To this end, we identify key stumbling blocks and propose recommendations., forthcoming in 'NanoEthics: Studies of New And Emerging Technologies'

In this contribution a logical analysis is given of the in design research regularly held expert position to prescribe expert design practices as favourable de-sign practices to other designers. First I argue that despite its conservative starting point to consider only types of already existing expert design practices as favourable, the position allows for some room to also prescribe new types of design practices. Second, I analyse the very claim that expert design practices define types of favourable practices. It is shown that the expert position may be formulated in a way in which this claim is tautological, and in a way in which it involves empirical prediction. This latter formulation allows testing the expert position by determining whether designers when mimicking experts indeed engage in favourable design practices.

In this paper, I argue that the benefits that smart cities purport to provide cohere poorly with a number of our shared phenomenological intuitions about the relationships(s) between authentic experience and technologised society. While many of these intuitions are, strictly speaking, pseudo-problems, they deserve our attention. These issues will only grow more pressing as our ‘dumb cities’, already so opaque to experience, give way to hyper-technologised ‘smart cities’. However, it is possible to design our way out of these pseudo-problems. Assuming we accept my argument that the distinction between authenticity and the device paradigm is premised upon a certain kind of category error, there is no categorical or definitional reason why it is not possible for urbanised, technologised spaces to feel authentic, whether by virtue of their aesthetic properties, or because they facilitate ‘authentic’ behaviour. Indeed, I argue that ‘inauthenticity’ is an aesthetic rather than an ontological category (much like ‘ugliness’, or ‘boring-ness’), with feelings of inauthenticity serving as evidence of a basic failure of design. Redressing these failures of design requires that we adopt a novel approach to the design and use of technical objects. Consequently, in the concluding analysis of the chapter I outline how the feeling of authenticity can be invoked in the smart city and, consequently, how these failures of design can be avoided.

In recent years, values have acquired an increasingly prominent role in innovation and innovation policies. On the one hand, technology developers and designers increasingly frame their goal in terms of value creation (in a broad sense), sometimes leading to explicit ‘value sensitive’ design approaches. On the other hand, recent strategies for anticipatory governance and TA increasingly tend to include at least some attention for values. However, in both cases values are usually seen as stable phenomena, which can be used as unequivocal criteria for assessing the desirability of innovation. This ignores the fact that morality is dynamic, partly as a result of technological change. The challenge for philosophy of technology, I will argue, is twofold: (1) to bring in the notion of techno‐moral change in innovation and innovation policies, (2) without falling prey to naïve notions of steering such change.

In this paper three perspectives are presented on defining the general notion of technical artifacts in formal ontologies. These perspectives share two intuitions: that technical artifacts are objects that exist by human intervention; and that technical artifacts are to be contrasted to natural entities. Yet the perspectives are different in the way they spell out these intuitions: the relevant human intervention may range from intentional selection to intentional production; and the contrast between technical artifacts and natural entities may be introduced by a constitution relation or by defining properties that set technical artifacts apart. The three perspectives are compared and their similarities and dissimilarities are explored.