Suggested readings, 11 October 2020

Here are some interesting articles I've read over the past week that I think are worth checking out.

Joe O'Connor, “A four-day week is not a luxury - it is an essential step forward.” 4 Oct, Business Post.

"Numerous academic studies, including from John Pencavel of Stanford University in 2014, have shown that there is no correlation between working long hours and greater productivity."

Richard Roberts and Seán O’Neill McPartlin, “The risks of a Covid-19 human challenge trial are significant, but entirely justified.” 6 Oct, Daily Telegraph.

"The risks of a Covid-19 challenge trial, though significant, are justified. It is decidedly positive that scientists are taking up the offers of volunteers to conduct these trials."

Fareed Zakaria, “The pandemic upended the present. But it’s given us a chance to remake the future.” 6 Oct, Washington Post.

"We could continue with business as usual and risk cascading crises from climate change and new pandemics. Or we could get serious about a more sustainable strategy for growth. We could turn inward and embrace nationalism and self-interest, or we could view these challenges -- which cross all borders -- as a spur to global cooperation and action. We have many futures in front of us."

Peter Singer, “To Lock Down or Not to Lock Down?” 7 Oct, Project Syndicate.

Philosopher Peter Singer looks at the arguments for and against strict lockdowns.

Ralph Leonard, “Is dating discrimination?” 7 Oct, UnHerd.

"Without the freedom to choose who you date, the modern achievements of personal autonomy and individual liberty are negated."

Joakim Book, “Nothing Is More Responsible for the Good Old Days Than a Bad Memory.” 7 Oct, Human Progress.

"We are overwhelmed by the latest terrible news broadcast on television. But, well-informed people should be guided by facts, not misplaced nostalgia for the past that never was."

Comments

Should We Use Neuroenhancement Drugs to Improve Relationships?

A version of this article was printed in Humanism Ireland , July-August, Vol. 147 (2014) L ove, it is fair to say, is probably the strongest emotion we can experience. It can come in many different forms: love of one’s parent, sibling, or child. Though most people consider romantic relationships—which include companionship, sexual passion, intimacy, warmth, procreation and child-rearing—as the most significant component of one’s life; and it is probably the thing we find discussed more than anything else in novels, films and music. Committed romantic relationships tend to occur within the institution of marriage—something that is ubiquitous to most, if not all, cultures. Indeed, relationships today, which are primarily love-driven, are not just confined to marriages, as many couples sustain relationships outside of wedlock. Being in a love-driven relationship is considered important for most people, as it contributes to happiness—something we a...

Should we repeal the Eighth Amendment?

Ireland will have a referendum on whether abortion should be permitted on 25th May. A referendum has to be held in order to alter the constitution. In 1983 voters approved of the Eighth Amendment – which created a constitutional recognition that gives equal status to the unborn and the mother – but requests to have it repealed have been steadily increasing in the past number years. In January, the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said Ireland’s abortion laws are “too restrictive and need to be reformed”. If the amendment is repealed, the government may introduce legislation permitting unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. At present, terminations are only permissible when the life of the mother is at risk, and under law anyone who seeks an abortion could potentially face 14 years in prison. Opponents of abortion, to be sure, see this as a moral horror, but the 12-week limit being proposed is fairly similar to abortion laws across Europe. Abort...

The new Irish hate speech law will do more harm than good

The government of the Republic of Ireland is currently proposing a new hate speech law, as part of the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, which would update the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. It is argued the existing law, particularly on account of the presence of social media, is insufficient. The aim is to give more power to prosecutors in order to make the issuing of convictions easier. Under the current law, defendants can appeal their charges by proving they did not have the intention of transmitting hatred; however, the new legislation will consider defendants liable even if their actions were not intentional. You can read the rest of the article here .

Nothing as It Seems

Search This Blog