the PhɅAct Collective

[…]

Philosophical activism is a concept I introduced in the context of my research on global governance. Some time ago, I proposed the Centre for Ethics and Value Inquiry of the University of Ghent to organise a series of workshops under the title of ‘Philosophical Activism’. The event that kicked-off this series was held on the 15th of February 2013. See the programme and the presentations here.

[…]

Read more at http://www.the-possibility-of-global-governance.net.

[Paper presented at the Earth Systems Governance Tokyo Conference ‘Complex Architectures, Multiple Agents’, 28 – 31 January 2013, United Nations University Headquarters, Tokyo, Japan]

Summary

Sustainable development is impossible without a continuous care for the implementation of human rights as made explicit in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the human rights-related principles of the Rio and Rio+20 Declarations. However, a full implementation of human rights would not automatically lead to sustainable development. As an exercise in coordinating complex systems of interlinked socio-economic processes in a dynamic of increasing globalisation, fair and effective sustainable development governance will always be troubled by cognitive complexity and moral pluralism. That is: even if we would all agree on the knowledge base of a sustainable development related problem, then opinions could still differ about the acceptability of solutions. The natural and social sciences can inform us about the character of options, they cannot always clarify the choice to make.

Advancing from this rationale, the paper argues that, added to the fields of human rights concerning a fair socio-economic ‘organisation’ of our society, fair and effective sustainable development governance implies the right for every human ‘to contribute to making sense of what is at stake’. In practice, this social justice based concern for human intellectual capacity building translates as a concern for free and pluralist advanced education, inclusive and transdisciplinary knowledge generation and inclusive, deliberative multi-level decision making.

The paper concludes with the argumentation that a rights-based approach to intellectual capacity building, supporting ‘the right to be responsible’ for every human, is the only way to enable the possibility of global sustainable development governance in a complex and pluralist world.

See the introduction and the paper here.

This paper was presented on 5 October 2012 at the 2012 Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change at the Free University of Berlin. It proposes an alternative qualitative vision on sustainable development that could inspire a global ethics for societal development and intergenerational accountability and, at the same time, expose specific responsibilities for policy, the private sector, science and civil society. The vantage point would be viewing sustainable development as a convergence of interests on three ‘policy levels’:

Normative integration: a ‘meta-level’ that starts from an interpretation of the concept of sustainable development as a meta-norm under which every human socio-economic activity would need to ‘fit’;

Pragmatic assemblage: a ‘medium level’ that concentrates on the ‘building blocks’ of sustainable development and their interrelation;

Pragmatic assimilation: a ‘ground level’ that focuses on how and why specific actors formulate own responsibilities and (eventually) take corresponding action;

The motivation is that, whatever our stake or concern is as citizens, communities, companies or institutions, we all have a joint interest in making these levels ‘work’. The challenge for sustainable development governance is then to ‘succesfully connect’ the levels, as this would unveil specific requirements for the way we make sense about our behaviour and rationalise it in view of the totality. Today, the political view is that ‘we know what (science tells us) to do’ and that governance is about organising our ‘good intentions’ into a coherent totality (see ‘the green economy’). The general assumption is that this is a complex but feasible exercise ‘if everybody shows political will’. This contribution argues that this approach is wrong, as this still provides ways for actors to escape specific responsibilities that are crucial for sustainable development. The paper elaborates on why and how the three-level picture of sustainable development governance would also make explicit these responsibilities and sketch required institutional approaches for a ‘politics of confrontation’ that would set this view in practice.

Read on at the research website of the ‘The Possibility of Global Governance’ project.

My philosophical research is primarily concerned with a human rights approach to intellectual capacity building for sustainable development governance. As I believe that any philosophy that makes normative statements about the socio-political reality also needs to be brought towards and tested in that socio-political reality, I find it also important to explore and establish the link between academic normative philosophical research and deliberative discursive interaction with civil society in global policy processes such as those facillitated by the United Nations.

From out of that motivation, during the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro (Rio+20 – see the official website), I engaged in a number of activities related to human rights. Read on at the research website ‘The Possibility of Global Governance’.

The philosophical activism tour of The PhɅAct Collective can now be consulted at Norms and Dialectics, the online journal of the collective. The list will be updated on a continuous basis. Also the interventions done before 2006 will be added for archive purposes. See the list as of today also below.

upcoming (more to add soon)

Rome, 19 September 2012
Organising a workshop on the critical assessment of scientific foresight methods at the the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development

Berlin, 5 October 2012
Lecture ‘A politics of confrontation for sustainable development governance’ at the 2012 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change

Buenos Aires, 24 – 26 April 2013
Invited Lecture ‘The Trouble with Justification’

previous

Charlotte (US), 5 – 10 August 2012
Interactive Workshop on the Ethics of Technological Risk Governance

Rio de Janeiro, 11 – 23 June 2012
Organising a workshop on a human rights based approach to sustainable development and working on the Equity Treaty at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development.

London, 25 – 29 March 2012
Presenting the “The Possibility of global Governance” Project at the Conference “Planet Under Pressure”

New York, 18 – 24 March 2012
United Nations Rio+20 Summit Intersessionals at the UN HQ

Madrid, 5 – 6 March 2012
The Ethics of Technological Risk Governance – Meeting on Transdisciplinarity in Education and Training

Brussels, 21 – 22 February 2012
Organised workshop “Exploring the Science, Politics and Ethics of Nuclear Technology Assessment”

Warsaw, 12 – 16 February 2012
Presentation “Public Reflexivity and its discomforts” at the ENS PIME Conference

Munich, 24 – 25 January 2012
Preparing an Energy Modelling Assessment workshop for the European Fusion Development Agreement Socio-Economic Research on Fusion programme

New York, 15 – 20 January 2012
United Nations Rio+20 Summit Intersessionals at the UN HQ

Madrid, 10 – 13 January 2012
The Ethics of Technological Risk Governance – Meeting on Transdisciplinarity in Education and Training

Cape Town & Durban, 28 November – 11 December 2011
United Nations Climate Change Conference

New York, 13 – 18 December 2011
United Nations Rio+20 Summit Intersessionals at the UN HQ

Geneva, 10 – 11 October 2011
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development conference

Bonn, 3 – 5 September 2011
64th Annual United Nations DPI/NGO Conference “Sustainable Societies; Responsive Citizens”

Kuala Lumpur, 9-10 May 2011
Invited lecture “The Ethics of Radiological Risk Governance”, International Course for Inspectors organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency

Brussels, 27 April 2011
Invited expert to the Meeting of the Working Group on the Ethics of Nanotechnologies of the UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (programme & participants)

Brussels, 11 April 2011
The Trouble with Justification’, invited lecture in the ‘Aarhus Convention and Nuclear Energy’ symposium organised by the University of Brusels and SCK-CEN

Cyprus, 28 – 30 March 2011
Coordination of Reflection Group on “Establishing a transdisciplinary knowledge base for nuclear safety and radiological protection”

Karlsruhe, 28 March 2011
Invited lecture “The Ethics of Radiological Risk Governance”, Karslruhe Institute of Technology

Karlsruhe, 21 March 2011
Invited lecture “The Ethics of Radiological Risk Governance”, Karslruhe Institute of Technology

Lisbon, 14 – 16 March 2011
Invited lecture “The Ethics of Radiological Risk Governance”, ITN – Institute for Nuclear Technology, Lisbon

New York, 6 – 8 March 2011
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Preparatory committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

Cancun, 29 November – 10 December 2010
United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP16 & Kyoto Protocol COP/MOP 6

Lisbon, 10 – 12 Nov 2010
Lecture “The Last Paradigm? Deliberate Visions on a Sustainable World” at the International Conference “Intellectual Topographies and the Making of Citizenship”, University of Lisbon

Ghent, 18 – 19 Oct 2010
Research interactions at the International Conference on “Moral Responsibility – Analytic Approaches, Substantive Accounts and Case Studies”, Centre for Ethics and Value Inquiry, University of Ghent, Belgium

New York, 20-24 Sept 2010
Study visit

Paris, 15 September 2010
10Y Anniversary Colloquium of the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence in Radioactive Waste Governance

New Haven, 17-19 Sept 2010
Lecture “Governance Through Better Relativism – Seven Challenges to a Future Climate Change Debate” and research interactions at the 2nd Yale-UNITAR International Conference on Environmental Governance and Democracy, Yale University

Vienna, 22 – 24 June 2010
Invited contribution to the Technical Committee Meeting on Public Perception of Fast Reactor Technology, International Atomic Energy Agency

Barcelona, 28 May 2010
Start-up meeting of the Integrated Sustainability Assessment of Energy Governance project

Princeton, 08 May 2010
Debating the Nuclear Weapons Convention – Observing and reporting on the preparation of a negotiations simulation exercise by 20 international students

New York, 01 – 10 May 2010
United Nations Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

New York, 01 – 10 May 2010
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development 18th session

Luxemburg, 08 April 2010
Contribution ‘Research analysis of the Belgian radioactive waste governance approach’ to the EC European roundtable on the Implementation of the Aarhus Convention

Palermo, 09 March 2010
Invited lecture ‘Beyond the search for truth – analysing what complicates the societal justification of nuclear technology’ for the EC ICARO Course [pdf]

Brussels, 19 March 2010
Invited lecture ‘The Ethics of Energy Governance’ for the EU-40 Group

Ghent, 5 March 2010
Lecture ‘The Possibility of Global Governance’ at the Ghent University Faculty of Arts and Philosophy [pdf]

Brussels, 23 February 2010
Research interaction at the EFONET Workshop

Brussels, 30 January 2010
Invited statement on the ethics of participatory decision making in the context of radioactive waste governance at the Public Forum organised by the King Baudouin Foundation

Copenhagen, 7 – 18 December 2009
United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP15 & Kyoto Protocol COP/MOP 5

Garching, 26 November 2009,
Max Planck Institute Meeting on the future research needs in the frame of the Socio-economic Research on Fusion (SERF) programme of the European Fusion Development Agreement of the EC

Lisbon, 8 – 11 November 2009
Invited lecture on “Lecturing ethics in courses on radiological protection and nuclear technology assessment: feedback on 5y of academic experience”

Sevilla, 27 – 30 October 2009
Invited lecture on “Transparency and Public Acceptance – a critical analysis of the complexity of nuclear technology assessment”, Annual conference of the Spanish Nuclear Society

Cumbria, 19-21 October 2009
CARL Workshop on the future research in social sciences and humanities on societal aspects of radioactive waste governance

Paris, 7 – 8 October 2009
Research contribution on the “European Guidelines for Inclusive Radioactive Waste Governance” in the frame of the Cowam in Practice project

Helsinki, 23 – 25 August 2009
Research contribution “Theoretical Perspectives on Participation and Democracy” to the ARGONA project

Paris, 6 – 7 July 2009
Research interactions at the CIPAST conference “Governing Uncertainty: The Contribution of Social Sciences to the Governance of Risks in Environmental Health”

Bucharest & Constanta, 17 – 19 June 2009
Lecture on ‘The Ethics of Inclusion and Compensation’ in the frame of the Radioactive Waste Governance research programme

Stockholm, 5 – 11 June 2009,
VALDOR Conference Lecture ‘Happenings at the science-policy interface – The case of radioactive waste governance’ (pdf)

Cordoba, 19 – 25 May 2009,
EYGN Forum Invited lecture on ‘Aspects of Participation and Transparency in Nuclear Technology Assessment’ (in the frame of the project ‘A Philosophy of Justification – the case of technology assessment’ (pdf)

Bergen, Norway, 10 – 12 May 2009,
World Social Science Forum presentation of the research outline of the project ‘The Possibility of Global Governance’

Paris, 23 – 25 March 2009
International Chambre of Commerce Headquarters Research interactions at the ICC Energy and Environment Commission

Uppsala, 16 – 19 March 2009
research interactions and input on the future European research policy on Risk Governance

Lisbon, 8 – 14 March 2009
Erasmus IP ICARO Course, University of Lisbon, ITN Lecture ‘Ethics and the Principle of Justification – the case of Nuclear Technology Assessment’

Manchester & St Bees, 9 – 13 February 2009
Research interactions on policy approaches in the frame of Inclusive Governance of Radioactive Waste

Berlin, 22 – 25 January 2009
Research and writing travel

Stockholm, 13 – 14 January 2009
Update research ‘Theoretical Perspectives on Participation and Democracy’, ARGONA project

Paris, 8 – 9 January 2009
Research interactions on the future European research policy on Risk Governance

Poznan, 01 – 12 December 2008
Research work at the 13th Conference of the Parties, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Paris, 24 October 2008
Discussion meeting on the Aarhus Convention in the context of governance of radioactive waste

Barcelona, 16 – 17 September 2008
Lecture on ‘Democratising the Science-Policy Interface’, EC FP6 OBRA Final Conference

Bucharest, 10 – 11 September 2008
Intervention on Aspects of Democracy in Inclusive Governance of Radioactive Waste – the Romanian context

Prague, 3 – 5 September 2008
Lecture – status update on the ‘Theoretical Perspectives of Participation and Democracy’ project

London, 26 – 27 June 2008
Intervention in the ENS Board meeting on research culture in nuclear technology assessment

Paris, 18 June 2008
Discussion on policy approaches in the frame of Inclusive Governance of Radioactive Waste

Prague, 13 – 14 June 2008
Lecture – status update on the ‘Theoretical Perspectives of Participation and Democracy’ project

Paris, 10 June 2008
Intervention on Aspects of Democracy in Inclusive Governance of Radioactive Waste – the French context

Porto, 24 May – 1 June 2008
Research and writing travel

New York, 09 – 17 May 2008
UN Headquarters Research work, CSD15, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

Budapest, 04 – 07 May 2008
NESTet Conference Lecture ‘Transdisciplinary Aspects of Education and Training in Radiological Risk Governance’

Bucharest, 14 – 16 April 2008
Intervention on Aspects of Democracy in Inclusive Governance – reflections on risk compensation

Nusa Dua, Bali, 3-14 December 2007
Research work and invited lectures on the use of knowledge in global decision making on complex problems, 13th Conference of the parties, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Paris, 23 May 2007
Conference ‘Intellectual capital for communities in the knowledge economy’

New York, 1-11 May 2007
United Nations Headquarters Research work, CSD15, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

Stockholm, 25 April 2007
Discussion meeting on research work ‘Theoretical perspectives on participation and democracy’

Lisbon, 23 March 2007
University of Lisbon Invited lecture on ‘Risk, transpareny and free choice – On the complexity of risk inherent technology assessment’

Prague, 7 February 2007
Technical University of Prague Invited lecture on ‘Ethical aspects of risk inherent technology applications’

Rauma (Finland), 2 February 2007
Vuojoki Castle Workshop and debates on deliberative democracy and stakeholder involvement

Amsterdam, 8 December 2006
Centrum De Brakke Grond Public statement on the clash between art and science on the occasion of the theatre piece ‘De utopie van het atoom’, in cooperation with Cie De Koe

Stockholm, 22-23 November 2006
Start research group on ‘Theoretical perspectives on participation and democracy’, ARGONA Project

Nairobi, 8-17 November 2006
Research work, COP12 Conference, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Ghent, 28-29 September 2006
Conference ‘Social Sciences and Democracy’

Prague, 13 September 2006
Invited talk on ‘A transdisciplinary approach to education and training’, 10th EAN Workshop

Stockholm, 21 June 2006
Workshop moderator ‘The Politics of Sustainable Development’

Brussels, 18 May 2006
Public talk on ‘The Art of Knowledge’, together with the author Kader Abdollah, Homo Universalis series, Vlaams-Nederlands Huis De Buren

Stockholm, 15-18 May 2006
Public statement on ‘The philosophy of risk and injustice’, VALDOR Conference

New York, 8 May 2006,
NY University, Dept Political Philosophy Workshop ‘Another state is possible’

New York, 2-12 May 2006
United Nations Headquarters Research work, CSD13, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

Ghent, 27-29 April 2006
Ghent University Conference on Global Ethics in Political Philosophy

The PhAct Collective is invited to make an intervention at another classical nuclear science and technology conference (the International Youth Nuclear Conference, 6 – 10 August 2012), this time in Charlotte (US). The intervention will consist of a lecture and a moderated discussion with young professionals. The topic will be the politics and ethics of nuclear technology applications, with a special focus on the muddy waters between peaceful and military applications. Contact us for more information on this event.

=/=/=/=/=/=/

rationale

Due to the specific character of its associated risk, the societal justification of nuclear energy technology is troubled by moral pluralism. That is: even if we would all agree on the scientific knowledge base for the assessment of the risk, opinions would still differ on its acceptability. Science may thus inform us about the technical and societal aspects of options, it cannot instruct or clarify the choice to make.

The matter becomes even more complex if we take into account the fact that science can only deliver evidence to a certain extent. Today no one will deny that nuclear science & engineering have reached significant levels of maturity. Despite this, the existence of inherent uncertainties, unknowns and unknowables puts fundamental limits to  understanding and forecasting technological, biological and social phenomena. And in addition, scientific insight or not, we cannot but to accept that three important factors remain to a large degree beyond control. These are human behaviour, nature and time…

On the other hand, public and political acceptance of nuclear – as a proof of societal trust – is nowadays regarded as an essential element for any energy policy that envisages the future use of nuclear as an energy technology option. Today, the nuclear option has to comply to a triple standard in this sense. It shares the criterion of economics with fossil fuels and renewables, and it shares the need to control a technological risk with fossil fuels (although their risks are essentially incomparable). And, compared with the other energy options, it stands alone with its responsibility to prevent misuse in contexts of military deterrence or conflict. On top of that, the global social and environmental agenda requires all energy options to comply with the criterion of sustainable development, however without a consensus among science, politics or civil society on how that compliance should be assessed or evaluated…

Looking at this deconstructed ‘picture of evidence’, one can wonder if and how it is still possible to rationalise the justification (or rejection) of nuclear as an energy technology. Can we only be cynical and claim that societal trust is something you should buy, mediate or declare through tactical communication and strategic political alliances? Or could societal trust be generated by an intellectual inclusive, reflexive and transparent societal debate? And, if so, how can this debate deliver practice-oriented consensus?

…

Approach

The interactive roundtable will explore the science, politics and ethics of nuclear technology assessment by starting from an analysis of the complexity of nuclear risk governance and by linking these insights to questions on knowledge use and decision making formats that characterise the ‘political act of justification’. The objective is obviously not to undermine the credibility of science or politics with regard to this act of justification as such. Rather, the aim is to provide better insight into the complexity of nuclear risk governance and to discuss as well its ethical foundations as the possible role of the nuclear scientist, engineer and manager in the social and political act of justification.

Contribution to the panel discussion during the “Equity, equality and pathways towards sustainability” session of the Planet Under Pressure conference (26 – 29 March 2012, London)

Equity seems to be an easy topic compared to all the other tackled at this conference. First: we don’t need new knowledge to argue for human equity. We have enough with the old knowledge. Second: nobody is against equity, at least not in principle.

It is too easy to blame a lack of political will for the lack of equity today. Also science, or ‘the knowledge society’ has a responsibility. This conference takes a positive approach ‘beyond the gloom and doom’ and focuses on ‘new knowledge towards solutions’. That is a good thing, but with the focus on knowledge, there is a risk that we would again confuse rationality with positivism, as we have been doing in our political-economic approaches that created the problems we face today. Whether new, different or advanced knowledge, knowledge is not enough for global justice and prosperity, and the knowledge society would need to help us to convey that message.

The reason why is simple. We would need to make explicit in education, research and politics that our global challenges are essentially cases of moral pluralism. That is: even if we would all agree on the knowledge base of a specific problem, then opinions could still differ about the acceptability of solutions. The sciences (natural and social) can inform us about the character of options, they cannot clarify the choice to make. That applies to basically every issue that is discussed here. To what extent we should regulate our markets, reduce our meat consumption; to what extent we subsidise renewable energy technologies or make our economy green… are issues of moral pluralism.

So moral pluralism forces us to engage in processes of deliberate dialogue and decision making; processes in which science has a place, but that would generate societal trust already by their open and inclusive method instead of only by the rationality of their envisaged solutions. And here is where equity comes in. because in this sense, equity is not only about equal access to basic needs such as water, food, energy, health care and shelter and equal access to justice, but also about equal access to that kind of knowledge generation and decision making that aims to make sense and give meaning to the world, ourselves and the issues at stake.

Before we all can become equally responsible, we first need to have equal chances.

See more at the The Possibility of Global Governance website

Since the beginning of negotiations in the frame of sustainable development, deliberations have been morally grounded by making reference to two general ethical principles that are said to have a fundamental character: human equality and fair play. The principle of human equality informs in its turn the ‘derived’ principles of (1) inclusion of the (potentially) affected in decision making, (2) intragenerational solidarity as an account towards the weak (the underdeveloped / the poor) and (3) intergenerational solidarity as an account towards future generations. The principle of fair play traditionally supports a commonly acknowledged need for transparency and accountability of authorities and the private sector, based on an understanding that political authorities and markets can (and should never try to) shape their own ethics, but that they have the moral right and duty to take part in the intellectual socio-political debate about them.

In todays discourses on sustainable development, there is a tendency to narrow the concept down to that of a green economy, thereby underexposing the importance of the ethics of sustainable development that would necessarily fall outside any reasonable market-regulating framework. Even in combination with poverty eradication, a green economy cannot ensure in itself the fundamental ethical principles of equality and fair play described above.

Based on this reasoning, the paper develops an argumentation on the need for an advanced understanding of the concept of sustainable development. In conclusion, it argues that the ultimate moral and practical challenge for humanity is to pursue and implement an ‘enlarged’ conception of distributive justice that aims for an equality of humans as regards their capacity of individual critical-intellectual development and their capacity to act as sense-making agents in political deliberation.

see the paper at the The Possibility of Global Governance site

A lecture about the politics of nuclear weapons done during the Workshop After 9/11 – The Politics of Terror and the Terror of Politics on Monday 12 March 2012. The Workshop was organised by the Centre for Ethics and Value Inquiry of the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy of the University of Ghent, Belgium.

Read an introduction and the presentation at Norms & Dialectics here.

A new essay on the problematic politics around nuclear energy as requested by the Belgian Newspaper De Morgen.

Kernenergie en het comfort van de polarisatie

U hebt het misschien niet gemerkt, maar de blauwdruk voor onze toekomst staat online. In januari presenteerde de Verenigde Naties de kladversie van ‘The Future We Want’, het eerste resultaat van de onderhandelingen die tegen juni de derde wereldtop Duurzame Ontwikkeling moeten voorbereiden. Hoe we in de toekomst energie gaan produceren en verbruiken wordt een kernthema, en de tekst onderschrijft unaniem het ‘Sustainable Energy for All’ initiatief van de VN. Daarin wordt gesteld dat gelijke toegang tot energie, energiebesparing en hernieuwbare energie prioriteiten zijn, en wordt bevestigd dat klimaatverandering ‘één van de grootste uitdagingen voor de toekomst’ is. In de teksten staat geen woord over kernenergie. Het lijkt alsof de lidstaten, de instituten, de privésector en het middenveld die het initiatief en de teksten onderschrijven het gezamenlijk eens zijn dat kernenergie problematisch is en daarom niet meer het vermelden waard. Niets is minder waar natuurlijk. Het wordt niet vermeld omdat het diplomatisch te moeilijk ligt. Rond de onderhandelingstafel en in de adviesorganen zitten ook landen en bedrijven die strategische belangen hebben in kernenergie. Het cynische resultaat is dat zowel voor- als tegenstanders tevreden zijn met het verzwijgen van de zaak.

Continue reading this text at Norms and Dialectics, the journal of the PhɅAct Collective, here.