Workshops

Time:

31.01.2019 / 10.00–17.00, lunch 13.00–14.00

Location:

Starship Technologies (Teaduspargi 8, Mehhatroonikum, 12618 Tallinn) – 6th floor by elevator from the main entrance.

Convenors:

Dr. Tauri Tuvikene (Tallinn University)

Markus Zimmermann (head of interaction design at Starship Technologies)

Concept:

The workshop explores the ways in which autonomous robotic mobility devices are interacting with human and non-human users of streets and how their mobility accords with rights to mobilities and the ethics of behaviour in urban spaces. Streets are environments with intense confrontation between different modes of mobility competing for rights of way in space and time, for safety and quality of experience. Streets are regulated by formalised and informalised traffic and other codes. Often, the legally prescribed is not the norm followed in the street practice. Streets are also not only subject for the Traffic Code but all sorts of ethics including those governing interaction between humans but also between humans and non-humans. Whether and in what ways does artificial intelligence change those rights and ethics is subject to much debate and yet unanswered questions: who bears the responsibility when technology fails?; who has right of way on streets and street crossings?; to what extent should robots have freedom to behave without direct interference of humans?; are robots perceived in ways resembling understandings of animals or do they constitute entirely new species of urban life?

This workshop discusses and uses practical exercises on self-driving robots such as parcel robots. The workshop aims to explore parcel robots as examples of autonomous robotics and uses various practical exercises in cooperation with a leading company Starship Technologies to understand the ways of being human in posthuman world.

See about Starship Technologies robots: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-46045365

Schedule:

10.00–10.45: Introduction to the day and a tour at the Starship Technologies lab

10.45–11.30: Overview session on parcel robots: human-machine interactions

11.30–12.30: Reading and discussion session on texts and practical examples

12.30–13.00: Preparations for the afternoon fieldwork

13.00–14.00: Lunchtime and transfer to the fieldwork site

14.00–15.30: Fieldwork session with practical tasks (location tbc)

15.30–16.00: Reflection of fieldwork (Science Park Technopol, Teaduspargi 6/1 – room Merkuur)

16.00–17.00: Feedback session about learning from human perspective of robots

Readings:

Johnson, D. G., & Verdicchio, M. (2018). Why robots should not be treated like animals. Ethics and Information Technology, 20 (4): 291–301.

Nagenborg, M. (2018). Urban robotics and responsible urban innovation. Ethics and Information Technology, First Online: 30 January 2018.

Bendel, O. (2017) Service Robots in Public Spaces. Telepolis. https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Service-Robots-in-Public-Spaces-3754173.html

Suggested reading:

Time:

31.01.2019 / 10.00–16.00, lunch 13.00–14.00

Location:

Estonian Academy of Arts (Põhja puiestee 7, 10412 Tallinn) – room A202.

Convenors:

Dr. Mari Laanemets (Estonian Academy of Arts)

Rebeka Põldsam (University of Tartu)

Concept:

What makes contemporary art contemporary? How has the rhythm of time and space been conceived in recent arts (visual art, music, videogames, TV, literature)? What kind of intra-subjective relations have been discussed and in what ways do they express common notions of our time?

Based on the assumption that technology has not only changed the relationships in the society, but our mind-set,how we think about and perceive ourselves, the new philosophical concept of posthumanism seeks to rewrite the very definition of being human.

While refusing the traditional ideas of singularity and embodiment for posthumanities thinkers the body is not more than a “message”, a coded information, transmitted and connected by specific media technologies. This standpoint finds its reflection in arts too, that documents and mirrors the new technologies and how they relate to us in our daily lives. Hence, critical contemporary artists (visual artists, filmmakers, musicians, architects, poets) tackle topics such as subject construction and formulate a critique of representation.

Posthumanities thinkers have taken upon a project to articulate what does the time we live in consist of. Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin Van den Akker propose in their Metamodernism that we live in bend of history, i.e. there is a general gut-feeling that a big change will happen very soon, which causes various metaxy, both oscillation between increasing extremes and living after global capitalist crisis and terror of wars. Thus, we will reflect on artistic strategies that are informed by posthumanist discussions, analyse image practices and think how art/aesthetics can be politically contextualised in the age of posthuman and what can be an “emancipatory practice” today? For that we will discuss and compare works by contemporary artists Jaakko Pallasvuo, Hito Steyerl and research group Forensic Architecture with unist theories and practices of art, time and space of Katarzyna Kobro and Władysław Strzemiński from 1922–1936.

Schedule:

10.00–13.00: Discussion seminar and viewing art works
13.00–14.00: Lunch
14.00–16.00: Discussion seminar and viewing art works

Readings:

Hito Steyerl, “The Spam of the Earth: Withdrawal from Representation“, e-flux journal 32, 2012.

Hito Steyerl, “Politics of Art: Contemporary Art and the Transition to Post-Democracy“, e-flux journal 21, 2010.

Hito Steyerl, “A Thing Like You and Me“, e-flux journal 15, 2010.

Yve-Alain Bois, Michel Feher, Hal Foster and Eyal Weizman, “On Forensic Architecture: A Conversation with Eyal Weizman”, October, no. 156, 2016: 116–140.

The White Pube, “Forensic Architecture: Counter Investigations” 22.04—29.04.2018

Susanne von Falkenhausen, “Too Much Too Fast. The work of art in the age of digital circulation: a lament”, Frieze, 14.11.2014

Timotheus Vermeulen, “Altergorithm”, in Rosi Braidotti & Maria Hlavajova (eds), Posthuman Glossary, London: Bloomsbury, 2018, pp. 29–31.

*
Works discussed

Jaakko Pallasvuo — Sacre (video, 21’, 2015)  + comics in Instagram

Hito Steyerl, “Factory of the Sun” (video, 23’, 2015) and/or “Liquidity Inc” (video, 2014)

Forensic Architecture — Death By Rescue

Time:

31.01.2019 / 10.00–16.00, lunch 12.30–13.30

Location:

1. Science Park Technopol Cybernetics Building (Akadeemia tee 21, 12618 Tallinn) – room B-101.
2. e-Governance Academy Foundation (Rotermanni 8,  10111 Tallinn)

Conveners:

Dr. Aro Velmet (University of Southern California and University of Oxford)

Dr. Egle Rindzeviciute (Kingston University)

Concept:

Solving the problem of man-machine communications has been a central obsession of state planners and social scientists since the end of World War II. In 1948, Norbert Wiener wrote: “To live effectively is to live with adequate information. Thus, communication and control belong to the essence of man’s inner life, even as they belong to his life in society.” Since then, countless social scientists and engineers have dedicated their lives to improving machine-facilitated communication and developed methods of data collection and processing, ranging from the public opinion survey to mass collection of digital data, all in the hopes that more information would lead to better governance.

This workshop looks at how this techno-optimistic aspiration of improving human lives through improved data processing has played out under two very different political regimes. In Soviet Estonia, cybernetics underpinned an entire school of social science and several attempts at social reform. From the 1960s onwards, the Estonian Academy of Sciences in Tallinn, the Sociology Laboratory in Tartu, and other institutions ranging from the Computational Centre of the Estonian Radio to the predecessor of Tallinn University sponsored efforts to collect data about economic performance, civic moods, reading habits, public opinion, and develop new, automated command and control methods. Since 1991, independent Estonia has built up a “digital republic”, as the New Yorker has called it, where citizen-state interactions are facilitated through digital platforms and citizens’ data is collected, maintained, and shared through a digital system known as X-Road. Through a series of readings, presentations, and site visits, this workshop will introduce participants to Estonia’s history of digital governance and discuss questions such as: What intellectual currents have enabled this techno-optimistic discourse to flourish? How do questions of privacy, ethics, democracy and social justice bear on these reforms? How different were these two moments in cybernetic optimism? Have these efforts been successful?

 Schedule:

10.00–11.00: Introduction and discussion of assigned readings

11.00–12.30: Lectures on the history of Soviet cybernetics and forecasting (Velmet, Rindzeviciute) at the Cybernetics Building

12.30–13.30: Lunch

13.30–15.00: Visit to the e-Governance Academy Foundation

15.00–16.00: Discussion of workshop presentations

Readings:

Nicolas Guilhot, “Cyborg Pantocrator: International Relations Theory from Decisionism to Rational Choice.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 47, no. 3 (2011), 279–301.

Egle Rindzeviciute, “Internal Transfer of Cybernetics and Informality in the Soviet Union: The Case of Lithuania”. In Sari Autio-Sarasmo and Katalin Miklossy (eds), Reassessing Cold War Europe (London & New York: Routledge, 2011), 119–137.

Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society (Boston: Da Capo Press, 1954), Chapters I and II.

Eden Medina, “The Politics of Networking a Nation“, Public Books, https://www.publicbooks.org/the-politics-of-networking-a-nation/

Time:

31.01.2019 / 10.00–16.00, lunch 13.00–14.00

Location:

LTKH Pelgulinna Naistekliinik Viljatusravikeskus (Sõle 23, Tallinn, 10614) – room 609.

Instructions on how to find the room:

Enter the guest entrance door of the six-story building and take the elevator to the 6th floor to the maternity departement. After exiting the elevator proceed to the end of the hallway to the room 609.

Convenor:

Dr. Kadri Simm (University of Tartu)

Concept:

What are your reactions when you are shown a photo of a breastfeeding bearded man? Do these feelings matter and to whom? Are they morally significant? Why/not? If a child is born four years after his parents’ death, what do our reactions reveal about the often implicit views we have about begetting children? Should we accept or oppose the practices of parents choosing the characteristics and talents of their children through gene editing if the choice is up to them (thus differentiating the so-called liberal eugenics from the eugenics of the old when states pushed for eugenic policies)?

These are not rhetorical questions (evidence shall be discussed in the workshop). Artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs) have been around for quite some time and many of them are no longer as controversial as they used to be. For example, over 5 million people have by now been born through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) since Louise Brown was announced the world’s first test-tube baby in 1978. Sperm and egg donor banks are common in many countries. More controversially, surrogacy arrangements are practiced globally, in both well-off and poorer countries. In this workshop, we will discuss the ethical and social challenges arising from the application new ARTs as well as brainstorm and speculate on what the future might bring in this field (with the help of science fiction literature).

Our framework for reflecting upon these issues will be moral philosophy (and, inevitably, political philosophy). The tools for tackling these issues include various theories of ethics (deontological, utilitarian, virtue ethics approaches) and the concepts (e.g. autonomy, informed consent etc.) and arguments (e.g. no third party harm) associated with the theories.

Thus the overall objective of the workshop is to familiarize the participants with the main approaches and debates surrounding the ethics of ARTs. By the end of the workshop the participants should be able to articulate their own views and arguments on some ethical aspects of ARTs.

The workshop materials are interdisciplinary, from philosophical bioethics and medical literature to science fiction literature.

Schedule:

10.00 –11.30: An introductory seminar into the current state of the art and ethical challenges associated with ARTs (Kadri Simm)

11.30 -13.00: “Assisted Reproductive Technologies in practice. Pelgulinna Fertility Centre”. Overview of the services and practices of the Pelgulinna Fertility Clinic. Joint case analysis of the ethical dilemmas encountered. (Dr. Katrin Kask – head of the Fertility clinic)

13.00–14.00: Lunch break

14.00–14.30: Visit to fertility clinic/lab (embryologist Tuuli Dmitrijeva)

14.30- 16.00:  Afternoon session. Science-fiction and the future of reproduction debate – what would we like it to be and why? (Kadri Simm)

Readings:

In order to benefit most from the workshop, as well as to contribute meaningfully, please be sure to read all of the following texts (available on the winter school website in “Readings”).

• Buchanan, A., Brock, D., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). Chapter 5 „Why not the best?“ from the book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 156–203.

• Sandel, Michael (2004). “The Case Against Perfection”. The Atlantic Monthly, April, pp. 51–62.

Science-fiction excerpts:

• Ursula Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness

• Margaret Atwood, Oryx and Crake

• Aldous Huxley, The Brave New World

Time:

31.01.2019 / 10.00–16.00, lunch 13.00–14.00

Location:

Mondo (Telliskivi 60A, 10412 Tallinn)

Meetingpoint: Reval Cafe (Telliskivi 60A) from where you will be guided to Mondo by the workshop facilitators.

Convenors:

Dr. Alexander Horstmann (Tallinn University)

Triinu Ossinovski (Tallinn University)

Concept:

The discussion beyond the human is an overwhelming one- Genetic engineering raise enormous ethical questions about manipulation of human life. Another question, closely related, is the question of bio-power today, and the politics of life in contexts of extreme poverty. In these contexts, nothing functions as it should in a healthy capitalist society regulated by the state, where a healthy and productive labor force enjoys the entitlements of welfare and services.  Reid argued, for example, that the efforts of the donor governments increasingly focus not on the well-being of the bare lives, but on the governability of these areas, to bring them back in the liberal system, so that they can participate in the liberal market economy (Reid 2010). In some contexts of Asia, in contrast, the state invests heavily into competitive bioscience in order to get the competitive edge in the knowledge economy or collecting DNA for surveillance (Ong 2008).

But how about humanitarian crisis, where there is no state. Some parts of Africa, for example, have been given up in the foreseeable future: There is no hope that welfare or basic services would be provided in the absence of a functioning state. In order to keep suffering people alive, increasingly humanitarian organizations deliver humanitarian goods to the needy. Helping the poorest to continue to live under extreme conditions has become a flourishing business on its own (de Lauri 2016: 1-16). While people in Afghanistan, Congo, Yemen or Haiti suffer from malnourishment, humanitarianism is very healthy. While humanitarianism used to be a discourse of hope for helping the poor, “the humanitarian enterprise has thus crossed the threshold of power” (Donini 2010).

Increasingly, (pharmaceutical) corporations and private-public partnerships have discovered the most miserable as a market for ready-to-use products in emergency condition: what Peter Redfield calls life technologies (Redfield 2005). In his article, Redfield lists ready-to-use food, without need of adding water or boiling, mosquito nets, filters and the mobile, disposable toilet as examples of humanitarian goods. While these products are marketed to solve pressing problems of hunger, disease, and hygiene, they do not deliver a better future or a healthier world, but develop in contexts of an understanding that even people under conditions of crisis should live. While these humanitarian goodies might help in the moment, they do not change the political conditions of answering the social question.

But while students of humanitarian action become increasingly disillusioned with the political extortion and commodification, there are still plenty of organizations, human rights activists and development initiatives that believe in the future of humanitarian assistance and development cooperation. Particularly interesting are local initiatives and activist groups that directly recruit from the local communities and are based on local knowledge of traditional social networks and the environment. Redfield has described the dilemma of a humanitarian dinosaur like “French Doctors without Borders” who regularly face access problems to the sections of the most vulnerable and have to make decisions over life (Redfield 2013). In Myanmar, for example, local development, humanitarian and human rights groups have emerged, that recruit staff from their own communities, build on local knowledge and seek partnerships with international humanitarian organizations and donor countries. On the other hand, United Nations Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and donor governments are entangled in massive geopolitical competition and negotiation with governments, resulting in a harsh humanitarian diplomacy, deciding about the future of humanitarian action and priorities made (de Lauri 2016). Increasingly, human rights workers are identified with the military intervention of superpowers that believe in a military solution.

In this workshop, we want to discuss the ethical weight of human health and survival with humanitarian specialists. In a first step, we will study together some of the humanitarian products introduced by Redfield. In a second step, we want to discuss a sound humanitarian philosophy and the design of future humanitarian ethics. What could be the future of partnership with local initiatives in humanitarian assistance and development cooperation (in the long term)? How can goals of sustainable development be achieved in a world where more and more areas are no-go areas for humanitarian workers? How can the most vulnerable not only benefit from, but participate in humanitarian design?

Schedule:

10.00: meeting at Reval Cafe at Telliskivi (Telliskivi 60a)

10.10–12.00: Roundtable

Talks by:

Alexander Horstmann: “The Humanitarian Supermarket: Ethical Considerations for Humanitarian Action”

Triinu Ossinovski: “Ethical dimensions of development cooperation and sustainable development”

Discussant: Riina Kuusik-Rajasaar

12.00–13.00: Open discussion

13.00–14.00: Lunch

14.00–15.00: Movie Poverty Inc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqGQ1IRhdzg

15.00–16.00: Discussion

References: 

De Lauri, Antonio 2016. The Politics of Humanitarianism. Power, Ideology and Aid. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.

Redfield, Peter 2005. Doctors, Borders and Life in Crisis. Cultural Anthropology, 20, 3: 328-361.

Readings:

Ong, Aihwa (2008). Scales of exception: Experiments with knowledge and sheer life in tropical Southeast Asia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 29: 117–129.

Redfield, Peter (2012). Bioexpectations: Life Technologies as Humanitarian Goods. Public Culture 24, 1: 157–184.

Reid, Julian (2010). The Biopoliticisation of Humanitarianism: From Saving Bare Life to Securing the Biohuman in Post-Interventionary Societies. Journal of Intervention of Statebuilding. 4, 4: 391–411.