“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.”
Blaise Pascal
“दिल की आवाज़ का दिमाग को कोई ज्ञान नहीं होता है।”
ब्लैस पास्कल
Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Quote of the Day April 30, 2025
World Social Report 2025
The World Social Report 2025 reveals a troubling increase in economic insecurity and inequality. More than a third of the global population struggles with daily income levels that barely sustain them. The report urges immediate action to address these challenges, advocating for a new policy framework based on equity, economic security, and solidarity.
Current Global Context
The report indicates that, despite progress in poverty reduction, many remain vulnerable. Over 2.8 billion people live on $2.15 to $6.85 daily. Economic shocks can easily revert these individuals back to extreme poverty. Widespread job insecurity is a major concern, with 60% of people fearing job loss. Income inequality is also rising, affecting social cohesion and trust.
Key Findings of the Report
The report outlines three core principles essential for sustainable development – equity, economic security for all, and solidarity. These principles are necessary to combat the deepening social crisis. It marks that over half of the global population lacks trust in their government. This distrust is exacerbated by the spread of misinformation.
Impact of Inequality and Insecurity
Rising inequality and insecurity are eroding social cohesion. Many individuals are frustrated and divided due to economic uncertainties. The report warns that without urgent action, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 will remain elusive. The concentration of wealth and power at the top fuels these divisions.
Need for Transformative Solutions
The report stresses the importance of transformative solutions to restore trust and cohesion. Current policies and institutions are inadequate to address the evolving social landscape. There is a pressing need for a reassessment of existing frameworks to better align with societal changes and challenges.
About the World Social Report
The World Social Report is published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. It was co-produced with the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER). The report serves as a key document for discussing socio-economic issues at the intergovernmental level.
State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples Report
The UN recently released the State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples Report. It reveals that Indigenous Peoples represent about six per cent of the global population. However, they protect approximately 80 per cent of the planet’s remaining biodiversity. Despite this, they receive less than 1% of international climate funding. This situation raises urgent questions about equity and inclusion in climate action.
Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Economies
Indigenous economies primarily rely on agriculture, fishing, and forestry. Climate change introduces uncertainty into these livelihoods. Erratic weather patterns and environmental degradation diminish their economic self-sufficiency. As traditional practices become less viable, Indigenous communities face increased challenges in sustaining their way of life.
Disruption of Land and Natural Resources
Ancestral lands are under threat from climate change. This disruption affects traditional land-based practices. Indigenous Peoples’ environmental stewardship is undermined by external pressures. The loss of land not only threatens their sovereignty but also their cultural connection to the environment.
Health and Well-being Challenges
Indigenous Peoples experience heightened vulnerability to climate-related health issues. Limited access to healthcare exacerbates these challenges. Traditional food sources are also affected, leading to nutritional insecurity. The overall health and well-being of these communities are at risk due to climate impacts.
Threats to Linguistic and Cultural Heritage
Climate change poses threat to Indigenous languages and cultural identities. Many traditional practices and knowledge systems are intimately tied to the environment. As ecosystems change, the transmission of cultural heritage becomes endangered. This loss threatens the very identity of Indigenous communities.
Indigenous Peoples as Custodians of Biodiversity
Despite their small population size, Indigenous Peoples play important role in biodiversity conservation. They safeguard portion of the Earth’s remaining biodiversity. Their traditional knowledge offers valuable vital information about sustainable land management. Indigenous agricultural practices demonstrate how to care for the earth while preserving resources.
Traditional Knowledge
Indigenous knowledge systems offer innovative approaches to environmental management. For example, the Comcaac people of Mexico encode ecological knowledge in their language. This traditional wisdom can inform modern climate strategies. Cultural norms, such as prohibitions on cutting certain trees in Somalia, illustrate how Indigenous practices can contribute to sustainability.
Plug the gaps
It is high time to frame clear guidelines on how AI can be used in academic research. This responsibility falls on the Univeristy Grants Commission. The sooner it acts, the better
An incident has highlighted the necessity to decide how Artificial Intelligence should be used in academic research. This incident showed how a mistranslation by AI can do irreparable damage to academic research. It also revealed the risks of using unchecked automation in academia.
The controversy erupted when researchers began noticing a strange term — vegetative electron microscopy — appearing in multiple scientific papers. At first glance, the phrase seemed like a technical term. However, upon closer examination, experts realised that the term is nonsensical.
The anomaly was initially flagged on PubPeer, an online research forum, by a Russian chemist using a pseudonym. However, Alexander Magazinov, a software engineer, ultimately traced the origin of the error. His investigation led him back to a single mistranslation by AI from a 1959 scientific paper. The original phrase used in that paper, electron microscopy of vegetative structures, refers to a well-established method for studying plant tissues. Unfortunately, due to AI’s inaccurate interpretation, the text spread across multiple columns and the words got jumbled up inadvertently, creating an entirely new — and nonsensical —term.
Alarmingly, this error managed to slip through the peer review system. It went unnoticed by reviewers and was subsequently repeated in nearly two dozen published papers. This has raised serious concerns about the reliability of present-day academic review processes. Some critics blamed peer reviewers, arguing that their failure to detect such a glaring mistake points to the declining standards of scrutiny in academic publishing. Others defended the reviewers, pointing out that their expertise is often limited to specific aspects of a study and that such errors can be difficult to catch, especially when AI-generated text is involved.
While AI has undoubtedly transformed research — streamlining data analysis and accelerating new discoveries — this incident underscores a significant downside: the dangers of blind trust in AI-generated content. As academic institutions increasingly integrate AI into their research workflows, maintaining rigorous human surveillance on research has become an imperative. Without stringent quality control measures, such errors could proliferate, ultimately eroding the integrity of scientific literature and undermining public trust in academic research.
What about the uses of AI in research in the humanities and social sciences? Today, it is possible for a student to generate an entire term paper or research paper using AI. The problem is that there are no specific rules in our country to decide whether an AI-generated paper can be considered as legitimate work, or whether it should be treated as plagiarism. Some research journals are now mentioning in their calls for submissions that they will not accept AI-generated papers. However, as of now, the University Grants Commission has not issued any specific circular on the use of AI in research and PhD work.
Currently, the UGC regulations require plagiarism checks before submitting a PhD thesis. However, checking for AI-generated content is not yet mandatory. Some plagiarism-detection softwares can identify AI-generated content; some universities have already started implementing such checks. But until the UGC officially includes AI-generated content under the definition of plagiarism, can it truly be considered as such?
There is another question. If researchers correct grammatical and syntactical errors in their theses using AI, should the text be considered as AI-generated content or should it be treated as an act of plagiarism? Various software tools are available
for correcting grammar. Many researchers and educators use such tools. Is this a crime?
It is high time to frame clear guidelines on how AI can be used in academic research. This responsibility falls on the UGC. The sooner it acts, the better.
Angshuman Kar
Source:Telegraph India, 29/04/25
Technology is not enough
Technology can't redistribute household labour by itself. A societal shift is required, one that not only redistributes labour but also dismantles structures that confine women to domesticity
One woman makes a wrong turn and, suddenly, her accidental witness — the male driver — turns judge and jury, remarking that the entire female species should be exiled from the driver’s seat. Such is the attitude of men towards women using technology; or rather, women using technology in ‘masculine spaces’. But what happens when technology enters the household, a space that a man spends a lifetime avoiding? Does the allure of technology draw him into taking up — finally — domestic responsibilities? Or is it just false optimism being served through seemingly progressive marketing?
Automation promises to balance the scales at home. But the real question is, will it? In her book, TechnoFeminism, Judy Wajcman discusses the concept of “technological determinism” where technology is viewed as a neutral force that shapes society. She critiques this idea by arguing that technological development and its use are shaped by social, economic, and political factors, including gender, and that these factors influence how technologies are utilised in ways that maintain existing power structures. If the dominant culture continues to frame the household as a woman’s domain and perceives men’s participation in that space as emasculating, no amount of sleek branding or AI-powered efficiency can ‘defeminise’ household labour.
This framing of the household as a woman’s domain is not just rooted in the essentialist belief that women are inherently better at running a home but it is also a carefully maintained social construct. Historically, women’s movement beyond the home has long been perceived as a threat to male hegemony. So the very technology that promises to ‘liberate’ them, by making their household chores easier, thereby giving them time to ‘move out’, may, instead, be seen as an intrusion, one that destabilises the patriarchal order.
If automation is the way forward, to what extent does it actually transform the nature of the household is worth scrutinising. A machine only takes up fragments of a task. For example, a washing machine only executes the washing bit, that too after being operated manually. The drying and folding of the laundry remain out of its scope. Who, then, does the remaining task? Can the convenience introduced by technology encourage men to volunteer in household work? Possibly not; the reason being since the task is now deemed ‘easier’, women should have, the logic goes, even less reason to complain.
The monetary aspect of automating a household also calls for attention. A truly automated home requires an entire fleet of machines where each task is performed by a specific machine. Unless automation is made accessible and affordable, such tech-based equality would remain illusionary. But even in households that can afford these high-tech advancements, convincing men to replace centuries of free female labour with pricey gadgets seems far-fetched, given that men serve as the fiscal authorities in most families. Moreover, in a society where woman’s labour is romanticised through notions such as ‘Maa ke haath ka khaana’ being an irreplaceable culinary standard, if the machine fails to produce the same taste, will the mother be summoned back to the kitchen?
There is also the question of agency. A woman’s ability to operate a device is not
solely determined by its design or her technological literacy but also by her autonomy to use it. Financial independence does not always grant women the freedom to make financial decisions due to deeply-ingrained societal norms; high-tech gadgets may encounter a similar fate. Women might feel hesitant to engage with these devices, fearing misuse or damage, ultimately reinforcing existing patterns of dependency.
Technology cannot redistribute household labour by itself. A broader societal shift is required, one that not only redistributes labour but also dismantles structures that confine women to domesticity.
Sanya Darapuri
Source: Telegraph India, 23/04/25
Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Quote of the Day April 22, 2025
“By constant self-discipline and self-control you can develop greatness of character.”
Grenville Kleiser
“अात्मानुशासन और आत्मसंयम के माध्यम से आप चरित्र की महानता को हासिल कर सकते हैं।”
ग्रेनविल क्लाइज़र
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)