Who Wants an Automated Vehicle?

New advancements in vehicle automation, electrification, data connectivity, and digital methods of sharing—known collectively as New Mobility—are poised to revolutionize transportation as it is known today. Exactly what results this disruption will lead to, however, remains unknown, as indeed the technologies and their uses are still taking shape amidst myriad interests. The impacts of this shift to New Mobility could be enormous, shaping economies, cities, and the lives of people in them. It is therefore vitally important for public interests to play a strong role in the development and deployment of these technologies. With the current trajectory of these technologies warning of the potential for increased energy use, environmental costs, and social inequity, interests at the community level need to be included and influential as soon as possible.

Equity in Urban Climate Change Adaptation Planning: A Review of Research

A growing number of cities are preparing for climate change by developing adaptation plans, but little is known about how these plans and their implementation affect the vulnerability of groups experiencing various forms of underlying social inequity. This review synthesizes research exploring the justice and equity issues inherent in climate change adaptation planning to lay the foundation for critical assessment of climate action plans from an equity perspective. The findings presented illuminate the ways in which inequity in adaptation planning favours certain privileged groups while simultaneously denying representation and resources to marginalized communities. The review reveals the specific ways inequity is experienced by disadvantaged groups in the context of climate change and begins to unpack the relationship between social inequity, vulnerability, and adaptation planning. This information provides the necessary background for future research that examines whether, and to what extent, urban adaptation plans prioritize social vulnerability relative to economic and environmental imperatives.

Altered social decision making in patients with chronic pain

Background Chronic pain affects up to 20% of the population, impairs quality of life and reduces social participation. Previous research reported that pain-related perceived injustice covaries with these negative consequences. The current study probed whether chronic pain patients responded more strongly to disadvantageous social inequity than healthy individuals. Methods We administered the Ultimatum Game, a neuroeconomic social exchange game, where a sum of money is split between two players to a large sample of patients with chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (n = 102) and healthy controls (n = 101). Anonymised, and in truth experimentally controlled, co-players proposed a split, and our participants either accepted or rejected these offers. Results Chronic pain patients were hypersensitive to disadvantageous inequity and punished their co-players for proposed unequal splits more often than healthy controls. Furthermore, this systematic shift in social decision making was independent of patients’ performance on tests of executive functions and risk-sensitive (non-social) decision making . Conclusions Our findings indicate that chronic pain is associated with anomalies in social decision making (compared to healthy controls) and hypersensitivity to social inequity that is likely to negatively impact social partaking and thereby the quality of life.

Assumed Differences; Unquestioned Typologies

Forensic anthropologists traditionally estimate “race” or “ancestry” as part of the biological profile. While practitioners may have changed the terms used to describe regionally patterned human skeletal variation, the degree to which they have altered their typological approaches remains unclear. This study analyzed 119 peer-reviewed forensic anthropology articles published in four relevant journals (1966–2020) by matching combination(s) of the key words “race,” “ancestry,” “ethnicity,” and/or “population affinity.” Results indicated that while “ancestry” has supplanted “race,” this change has not brought concurrent modifications in approach, nor deeper scrutiny of underlying concepts. “Race” and “ancestry” were infrequently defined in 13% and 12% of sampled articles, respectively, and a plethora of social, geographic, and pseudoscientific terms persisted. Forensic anthropologists increasingly engaged with questions addressing the forces patterning human biological variation: 65% of studies postdating 1999 discussed population histories/structures and microevolution; 38% between 1966–1999. Fewer studies contextualized or critiqued approaches to analyzing population variation (32% of studies postdating 1999; 4% from 1966–1999), and virtually no studies considered the possibility that skeletal variation reflected embodied social inequity (5% of studies postdating 1999; 0% from 1966–1999). This lack of interrogation and clarity contributes to the faulty notion that all forensic anthropologists share similar definitions and leads to an oversimplification of complex biocultural processes. While the lack ofdefinitions and biocultural engagement may be partly due to editorial and peer-review pressures, it is likely that many forensic anthropologists have not interrogated their own perspectives. This article holds that it is essential for us to do so.

Beyond Neoliberalism

Chapter 4 explains the cultural stories and values that bolster the neoliberal paradigm, one that shapes exploitative socioecological relationships. It argues that ideas have consequences and details the history of Western thought—such as Descartes’ hierarchical dualisms and social sciences’ profound misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution—that brought extreme individualization, inequality, and fierce competition. These stories and values promote ideas that humans have moral dominion over nature and man has dominion over woman. This world view justifies social inequity as well as humans’ exploitation of other species and the environment. These codified stories and values perpetuate humans’ acts of harm against others and the planet. The chapter further discusses how and why economic context matters in shaping paths of resistance and co-opting alternative and green technologies. It explains the need to scale up socioecological values first in order to cultivate the underlying framework for a new environmental economic paradigm.