At the moment so much human endeavour is focused on ‘more’: more GDP, more profits for businesses, more consumer items, and this drive towards ‘more’ is causing us to massively overuse our resources and pollute our environment. So we actually need to focus on deeply fundamental questions like ‘What is happiness, what is human wellbeing?’, and we need to reorganise our global system in a way that we can manage with far less and still be just as happy and healthy.
unknown: this could have been a quote from your article, if only it were open access.
Dr. Täuber was punished for exerting her academic freedom. The same court that allowed the UG to fire her also made it clear that it was the university’s negative reaction to an essay about her experiences of gender discrimination at the university that “seriously disturbed” their work relationship. Alarming details have also been made public about how the university pressured Dr. Täuber to censor future publications, in order to retain her position.
Reinstate Dr. Täuber, reform complaint procedures, and establish binding protections for academic freedom.
Open letter by employees and students of the University of Groningen (UG), joined by concerned observers and colleagues at institutions around the world: Reinstate Susanne Täuber, protect social safety and academic freedom at the RUG
Why would we, as academics, be eager to use and advertise this kind of product?
Maybe we, academics, have become so accustomed to offloading our thinking to machine learning algorithms that we cannot think critically anymore (see e.g. Spanton and Guest, 2021; Guest and Martin, 2022; van Rooij, 2020), making us susceptible to believe false, misleading and hyped claims? Or maybe we are afraid to exercise our independent decision making capacity and say “No” to automated bias, hype, misinformation and otherwise harmful technology? Or maybe privileged academics are just fine with enabling the agendas of multimillion dollar companies founded by people motivated by capitalist and bigoted ideologies? Or maybe a mix of these things?
You should also use “lack of novelty” as a criterion with caution. Almost nothing of value is ever truly new, and many good ideas need repeated reinforcement to catch on. Let’s focus on what the paper contributes to the community, not to the archive of facts.