Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
|
|
Session Overview |
| Date: Thursday, 26/June/2025 | |
| 8:15am - 8:45am | Registration Location: Voorhof |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Disruptive technology I Location: Blauwe Zaal |
|
|
The role of technology in conceptual disruption TU Delft, Netherlands, The The good, the bad, and the disruptive: On the promise of niche construction theory for technology ethics 1Utrecht University, Netherlands, The; 2Eindhoven University of Technology The sense of disruptive innovation Wageningen University and Research |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Phenomenology I Location: Auditorium 1 |
|
|
Developing a Posthuman and Postphenomenological AI Literacy University of Washington, United States of America The temporal aspect of multistability: Extending postphenomenology through Bergson's theory of time Institute of Advanced Media Arts and Sciences, Japan Technologically mediated deliberation: bringing postphenomenology to phronesis University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Human - Technology Location: Auditorium 2 |
|
|
Human-technology relations down to earth 1Saxion University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands; 2University of Twente, the Netherlands Special obligations from relationships with robots ——Beyond the relational approach to moral status—— Hokkaido University／Japan Transforming technology: Marcuse and Simondon on technology, alienation, and work University of Lisbon, Centre of Philosophy (CFUL), Portugal |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Virtue ethics I Location: Auditorium 3 |
|
|
Does technology transform phronesis? A foray into the virtues and vices of procycling Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto, Portugal Creative machines & human well-being: an ethical challenge for the fully flourishing life? TU Eindhoven, Netherlands, The |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Social media Location: Auditorium 4 |
|
|
"But I did not mean to say that". On affective utterances on social media and their collective epistemic effects TU Delft, Netherlands, The Smoking versus social networking; analyzing the analogy between tobacco use and social media use University of Groningen, Netherlands, The |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Large Language Models I Location: Auditorium 5 |
|
|
How LLMs diminish our autonomy 1Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Germany; 2Institute for Futures Studies, Sweden; 3Ruhr-Universität Bochum Intimacy as a Tech-Human Symbiosis: Reframing the LLM-User Experience from a Phenomenological Perspective TU Delft, Netherlands, The Large language models and cognitive deskilling Tilburg University, Netherlands, The |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Responsible innovation Location: Auditorium 6 |
|
|
Between Responsible Innovation and the Maintenance Turn: Imaginaries of Changeability and the Collaborative Frameworks for Philosophy of Technology and Environmental Ethics University of Wroclaw, Poland Responsible Innovation as Practiced by Ceramic Craftsmen in China Dalian University of Technology, China, People's Republic of On the episteme of technology alignment: A critical hermeneutics of the current understanding of responsiveness in Responsible Innovation and Responsible AI discourses Wageningen University, Netherlands, The |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Engineering ethics Location: Auditorium 7 |
|
|
Artificial Intelligence in design engineering practice University of Twente, Netherlands, The Concept Engineering: a new approach to address Conceptual Disruption and Virtual Ethical Dilemmas Inner Mongolia University, China, People's Republic of |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Papers) Virtual Location: Auditorium 8 |
|
|
The Virtual and the Sacred Notre Dame de Namur University, United States of America Virtual Pregnancy Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russian Federation How new interaction relationships are possible: the social imaginary of elderly holograms Soochow University, Taiwan |
| 8:45am - 10:00am | (Symposium) Virtue ethics (SPT Special Interest Group on virtue ethics) Location: Atlas 2.215 |
|
|
Virtue ethics (SPT Special Interest Group on virtue ethics) Presentations of the Symposium Internal conflicts among moral obligations: pursuing a quest for the good as innovators Artificial virtues and hermeneutic harm Technological bullshit Digital doppelgangers, moral deskilling, and the fragmented identity: a Confucian critique |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Disruptive technology II Location: Blauwe Zaal |
|
|
Digital technologies and the disruption of the lifeworld 1WUR, Netherlands, The; 2UT, Netherlands, The Understanding deep technological disruptiveness as the social construction of human kinds Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, The Conceptual disruption and niche disruption Vrije Uni Amsterdam, Netherlands, The |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Phenomenology II Location: Auditorium 1 |
|
|
Lost in extension: technology, ignorance, and cognitive phenomenology University of Antioquia, Colombia In the eye of the shitstorm: a critical phenomenology of digital conflict University of Hamburg, Germany Responsibility gap: Introducing the phenomenological account of criminal law Jagiellonian University, Poland |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Work Location: Auditorium 2 |
|
|
Democratizing workplace AI as general intellect Tilburg University, Netherlands, The All play and no work? AI and existential unemployment Lingnan University, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China) Algorithms at Work between Discrimination and Domination Utrecht University, Netherlands, The |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Virtue ethics II Location: Auditorium 3 |
|
|
Intelligence over wisdom: the price of conceptual priorities Tilburg University, Netherlands, The Addressing challenges to virtue ethics in the application of artificial moral agents: From a Confucian perspective Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China) News, AI, and issues in ethics Kansas State University, United States of America |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Democracy Location: Auditorium 4 |
|
|
The new stage of democracy. A call for regulation of social media platforms based on theater theory University of Twente, Netherlands, The Rethinking Democracy in the age of AI Sorbonne Université, France Immaterial Constitution Vrjie Universiteit Brussel, Belgium |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Large Language Models II Location: Auditorium 5 |
|
|
“Who” is silenced when AI does the talking? Philosophical implications of using LLMs in relational settings Maastricht University, Netherlands, The Connecting Dots: Political and Ethical Considerations on the Centralization of Knowledge and Information in Data Platforms and LLMs Forum Transregionale Studien, Germany LLMs and Testimonal Injustice University of Glasgow, United Kingdom |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Interpreting and engineering technology Location: Auditorium 6 |
|
|
Visualising the Quantum World in Quantum Technology: on Pragmatist and Realist Considerations in Quantum Interpretations TU Delft, Netherlands, The Information Technology engineers' professionalism international comparison Nagoya University, Japan Enactivist App Design: Exper - a case study 1University of North Dakota, United States of America; 2St. Lawrence College, Canada |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Ethics I Location: Auditorium 7 |
|
|
Technology as uncharted territory: Contextual integrity and the notion of AI as new ethical ground University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom OPERA: Operational ethics readiness evaluation for AI 1RISE, Sweden; 2CEA, France The bullshit singularity is near Old Dominion University, United States of America |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Papers) Avatar Location: Auditorium 8 |
|
|
Avatars as digital naming Inner Mongolia University, China, People's Republic of Avatar attachment in virtual worlds: The conflict between self-fictionalization and authentic representations Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Institut für Wissenschaft und Ethik AI ‘ancestors’? AI avatars in African ethics Utrecht University, Netherlands, The |
| 10:05am - 11:20am | (Symposium) Virtue ethics (SPT Special Interest Group on virtue ethics) Location: Atlas 2.215 |
| 11:20am - 11:50am | Coffee & Tea break Location: Voorhof |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Values Location: Blauwe Zaal |
|
|
Toward beneficial technology: A transformative master’s program for product managers California Institute of Integral Studies, United States of America Artificial moral discourse and the future of human morality TU/E, Netherlands, The Recognition through technology: Design for recognition and its dangers Delft University of Technology, Belgium |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Philosophy of technology I Location: Auditorium 1 |
|
|
Philosophy of Technology and its extractivist Blind Spot: On Mechanisms of Occlusion 1Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Institut für Wissenchaft und Ethik, Bonn Sustainable AI Lab, Germany; 2Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, United States of America An empirical study of empirical philosophy of technology celebrating plurality TU Delft, The Netherlands Technoscience: perspectives on a new concept for the philosophy of technology Instituto Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Well-being Location: Auditorium 2 |
|
|
Spiritual Learning for Mental Health and Well-being in the Digital Age O.P Jindal Global University, India, India AI’s undervalued burden: Psychological impacts Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Philosophy and History of Science Personal well-being in the digital age: on the role of the sense of self Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, The |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Emotions Location: Auditorium 3 |
|
|
Emotional expressions, Informational opacity, and Technology: On the necessity of overt emotional expressions in social life Leiden University, NL (Post)emotions in care: AI, mechanization, and emotional practices in the age of efficiency Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands, The Affective injustice and affective artificial intelligence 1Maastricht University; 2Tilburg University |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Chatbots Location: Auditorium 4 |
|
|
LLM-based chatbots – the moral advisor in your pocket…why not? Technical University of Munich, Germany In ChatGPT, we trust! Exploring GenAI's trust-knowledge relation University Vienna, Austria |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Algorithms Location: Auditorium 5 |
|
|
Algorithms, abortion, and making decisions Virgina Tech, United States of America Abortion is usually framed in the context of decisions— someone who supports abortion rights is often referred to as “pro-choice.” In the digital age, it is notable that algorithms— the sets of instructions that design the technologies we use to communicate every day— are also described using the language of decisions. This has been exemplified by the recent emergence of “decision sciences.” I argue that both abortion and algorithms are framed as decisions in ways that are misleading. Abortion is usually framed as a personal decision for a pregnant person; outside of the sociopolitical and cultural context in which that person lives. The language of “choice” falsely makes the assumption that everybody has equal access to abortion, which feminist theorists have pointed out is not the case. Even before the overturn of Roe, abortion was often inaccessible, specifically to marginalized groups, in the United States. Algorithms, on the other hand, are framed as decisions that are made solely by computers, which leaves out human bias that is embedded in these technologies. That algorithms are a result of human decision-making, and replicate and reproduce human biases, has been shown by digital studies scholars. Furthermore, algorithms, in the digital age, are a necessary component of abortion access— Google searches, as well as use of other internet platforms, can lead someone to medically accurate accessible information about abortion access, but it can also lead someone to misinformation that could ultimately result in preventing a wanted abortion from happening. I argue that, in the post-Roe United States, as well as in the digital age generally, algorithmic information technologies will play a central role in reproductive justice. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand dynamics of computer and human decision making, which really are both forms of human decision making, in order to get the full picture of how digital technology relates to and allows for abortion access. The power topology of algorithmic governance Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, China, People's Republic of As a co-product of the interplay between knowledge and power, algorithmic governance raises fundamental questions of political epistemology while offering technical solutions constrained by value norms. Political epistemology, as an emerging interdisciplinary field, investigates the possibility of political cognition by addressing issues such as political disagreement, consensus, ignorance, emotion, irrationality, democracy, expertise, and trust. Central to this inquiry are the political dimensions of algorithmic governance and how it shapes or even determines stakeholders’ political perceptions and actions. In the post-truth era, social scientists have increasingly employed empirical tools to quantitatively represent algorithmic political bias and rhetoric. Despite advancements in the philosophy of technology, which has shifted from grand critiques to micro-empirical studies, it has yet to fully open the space for political epistemological exploration of algorithmic governance. To address this gap, this paper introduces power topology analysis. Topology, a mathematical field that studies the properties of spatial forms that remain unchanged under continuous transformation, has been adapted by thinkers like Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Henri Lefebvre, Bruno Latour, and David Harvey to examine the isomorphism and fluidity of power and space. Power, like topology, retains continuity even through transformations, linking the two conceptually. This paper is structured into four parts. The first explores the necessity and significance of power topology in conceptualizing algorithmic power and politics through the lens of political epistemology. The second examines the generative logic and cognitive structure of power topology within algorithmic governance. The third analyzes how power topology transforms algorithmic power relations into an algorithmic political order. The fourth proposes strategies for democratizing algorithmic governance through power topology analysis. The introduction of power topology analysis offers a reflexive perspective for the philosophy of technology to re-engage with political epistemology—an area insufficiently addressed by current quantitative research and ethical frameworks. This topological approach provides a detailed portrait of algorithmic politics by revealing its power topology. Moreover, it redefines stakeholder participation by demonstrating how algorithms stretch, fold, or distort power relations, reshaping the political landscape. By uncovering the material politics of these transformations, power topology encourages the philosophy of technology to reopen political epistemological spaces and adopt new cognitive tools for outlining the politics of algorithmic governance. Ultimately, this framework aims to foster continuous, rational, and democratic engagement by stakeholders in the technological transformation of society, offering a dynamic and reflexive tool for understanding the intersection of power, politics, and algorithms. Believable generative agents: A self-fulfilling prophecy? 1University of Vienna, Austria; 2University of Paderborn, Germany Recent advancements in AI systems, in particular Large Language Models, have sparked renewed interest in a technological vision once confined to science fiction: generative AI agents capable of simulating human personalities. These agents are increasingly touted as tools with diverse applications, such as facilitating interview studies (O’Donnell, 2024), improving online dating experiences (Batt, 2024), or even serving as personalized "companion clones" of social media influencers (Writer, 2023). Proponents argue that such agents, designed to act as "believable proxies of human behavior“ (Park et al. 2023) offer unparalleled opportunities to prototype social systems and test theories. As Park et al. (2024) suggest, they could significantly advance policymaking and social science by enabling large-scale simulation of social dynamics. This paper critically examines the foundational assumptions underpinning these claims, focusing on the concept of believability driving this research. What, precisely, does "believable" mean in the context of generative agents, and how might an uncritical acceptance of their believability create self-fulfilling prophecies in social science research? This analysis begins by tracing the origins of Park et al.’s framework of believability to the work of Bates (1994), whose exploration of believable characters has profoundly influenced the field. Drawing on Günther Anders’ (1956) critique of technological mediation and Donna Haraway’s (2018, 127) reflections on "technoscientific world-building“, this paper situates generative agents as key sites where science, technology, and society intersect. Ultimately, it calls for a critical reexamination of the promises and perils of generative agents, emphasizing the need for reflexivity in their conceptualization, as well as their design and application. By interrogating the assumptions behind believability, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the socio-technical implications of these emerging AI systems. Building on Louise Amoore’s (2020) concept of algorithms as composite creatures, this paper explores the implications of framing generative agents as "believable." In the long run, deploying these AI systems in social science research risks embedding prior normative assumptions into empirical findings. Such feedback loops can reinforce preexisting models of the world, presenting them as objective realities rather than as socially constructed artifacts. The analysis highlights the danger of generative agents reproducing and amplifying simplified or biased representations of complex social systems, thereby shaping policy and theory in ways that may perpetuate these distortions. References Amoore, Louise (2020). Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others. Durham: Duke University Press. Anders, Günther (1956). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen Bd. I. Munich: C.H. Beck. Batt, Simon (2024). „Bumble Wants to Send Your AI Clone on Dates with Other People's Chatbots.” Retrieved from https://www.xda-developers.com/bumble-ai-clone-dates-other-peoples-chatbots/. Contreras, Brian (2023). „Thousands Chatted with This AI ‘Virtual Girlfriend.’ Then Things Got Even Weirder.” Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-06-27/influencers-ai-chat-caryn-marjorie. Haraway, Donna Jeanne (2018). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Second edition. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. O’Donnell, James (2024). „AI Can Now Create a Replica of Your Personality.” Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/11/20/1107100/ai-can-now-create-a-replica-of-your-personality/. Park, Joon Sung, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein (2023). „Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior.“ In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606763. Park, Joon Sung, Carolyn Q Zou, Aaron Shaw, Benjamin Mako Hill, Carrie Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Robb Willer, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein (2024). „Generative Agent Simulations of 1,000 People“, Retrieved from arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.10109. |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Privacy Location: Auditorium 6 |
|
|
What is “mental” about Mental Privacy? 1University of Zurich; 2University of Hagen Is Privacy Security? Cornell University, United States of America |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Ethics II Location: Auditorium 7 |
|
|
Considering the social and economic sustainability of AI University of Bonn, Germany Synthetic socio-technical systems: poiêsis as meaning making 1Utrecht University, Netherlands, The; 2University of Amsterdam Exploring Kantian Part-Representation and Self-Setting Concepts in the Age of Artificial Intelligence Shenzhen University, China |
| 11:50am - 1:05pm | (Papers) Digital age Location: Auditorium 8 |
|
|
The affective scaffolding of grief in the digital age: the case of deathbots Macquarie University, Australia So close, yet so far: spatial production and immersive experiences in mixed reality-a case study of Ryuichi Sakamoto's Kagami National Chengchi University, Taiwan |
| 1:05pm - 2:30pm | Lunch break Location: Senaatszaal |
| 2:30pm - 3:30pm | Keynote 2 - Shannon Vallor - De-coding our humanity: Reflections on intimate and immanent technologies Location: Blauwe Zaal |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Sex robots Location: Blauwe Zaal |
|
|
Queering the sex robot: insights from queer Lacanian psychoanalysis and new materialism University of Twente, Netherlands, The Buddhist killer bots, sex bots and enlightenment bots Eindhoven University of Technology |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Philosophy of technology II Location: Auditorium 1 |
|
|
Vulnerability and technologies in post-normal times 1Institute of Philosophy- Spanish National Research Council, Spain; 2University of Oviedo, Spain Technical Expression and the mitigation of alienation in human-technology relationships TU Eindhoven, The Netherlands |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Personality, pediatrics and psychiatry Location: Auditorium 2 |
|
|
Personality without theory: Engineering AI personalities 1The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow; 2Polskie Towarzystwo Informatyczne, Warsaw The use of AI in pediatrics - an assessment matrix for consent requirements Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Germany Developing ambiguous classifications for a clinically relevant psychiatric research Costech, Université de technologie de Compiègne, France |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Care I Location: Auditorium 3 |
|
|
The helpless robot and the serving human Technical University Berlin, Germany Preserving intimacy in dementia care: an ethical and technological approach towards an ecology of memory UCLouvain, Belgium Matters of care? How screenshotting reveals mental therapy chatbots’ artificial intimacies Aarhus University, Denmark |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Disruptive technology III Location: Auditorium 4 |
|
|
Ethical frameworks for disruptive technologies: Balancing innovation, privacy, and value-sensitive design 1Hyper Island; 2University of Plymouth It’s time to talk about moral progress: Facing the normativity of the philosophy of (disruptive) technologies University of Hamburg, Germany Navigating conceptual disruption through affordances-informed conceptual engineering. Taxonomy and operationalisation TU Delft, Netherlands, The |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Machine Learning Location: Auditorium 5 |
|
|
“Does it really hurt that much?” The Ethical Implications of Epistemically Unjust Practices in Machine Learning Based Migraine Assessments University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom Fair to understansd fairness contexually in machine learning Indian Institute of Technology, India Technology as a constellation: The challenges of doing ethics on enabling technologies University of Twente |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Aligning values Location: Auditorium 6 |
|
|
Aligning technology with human values Texas A&M University, United States of America Aligning AI with ideal values: Comparing metanormative methods to the Social Expert Model Texas A&M University, United States of America Aligning values: setting better agendas for technology development TU Delft, the Netherlands |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (Papers) Ethics III Location: Auditorium 7 |
|
|
The ethics of blockchain-based construction e-bidding Virginia Tech, United States of America Managing folk terms in AI: the placeholder strategy as a lesson from comparative cognition Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, The Ethics readiness: Aligning ethical approaches with a technology’s stage of development University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The |
| 3:35pm - 4:50pm | (People) Intimacy I Location: Auditorium 8 |
|
|
Intimacy and the Spatialization of Care: the case of Teleconsultation Booths Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium Intimate technology and moral vulnerability University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom |
| 4:50pm - 5:20pm | Coffee & Tea break Location: Voorhof |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (People) Intimacy II Location: Blauwe Zaal |
|
|
Personal and intimate relationships with AI: an assessment of their desirability University of Twente, Netherlands, The Hybrid family – intimate life with artificial intelligence Prague University of Economics and Business, Czech Republic (Don’t) come closer: Excentric design for intimate technologies Tilburg University, Netherlands, The |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Philosophy of technology III Location: Auditorium 1 |
|
|
Pharmacology of plasticity: bridging Stiegler and Malabou University of Turin, Italy Techsploitation cinema: how movies shaped our technological world University of Twente, Netherlands, The The Semi-Rational Creation of life: Challenges in Synthetic Biology Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, The |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Gender and the self Location: Auditorium 2 |
|
|
Unpacking gender affirming surgeries: technology, identity, and acceptance Virginia Tech, United States of America The connected self: anthropotechnics and identity in the digital domestic space University of Turin, Italy |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Care II Location: Auditorium 3 |
|
|
The limits of care: A critical analysis of AI companions' capacity for good care University of Auckland, New Zealand From institutional psychotherapy to caring robots – a posthumanist perspective IT:U Linz, Austria Transformation of Autonomy in Human(patient)-AI/Robot-Relations Tohoku University, Japan |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Anthropomorphism Location: Auditorium 4 |
|
|
Anthropomorphism, false beliefs and conversational AIs University of Oxford, United Kingdom What's the problem with anthropomorphising AI-driven systems? Utrecht University, Netherlands, The |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Language Location: Auditorium 5 |
|
|
Is extensible markup language perspectivist? Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy Wittgenstein’s Woodsellers and AI: Interpreting Large Language Models in practice: Rationality First vs Coherence First approaches The New School, United States of America Time and Temporality in Engineering Language University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, People's Republic of |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Decision-making Location: Auditorium 6 |
|
|
Two’s company, three’s a crowd: theoretical considerations for shared-decision making in AI-assisted healthcare 1Erasmus MC, TU Delft; 2TU Delft; 3TU Delft On the philosophical limits of artificially intelligent decisions Utrecht University, Netherlands, The Shaping technology with society's voice: measuring gut feelings and values Fontys, Netherlands, The |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Ethics IV Location: Auditorium 7 |
| 5:20pm - 6:35pm | (Papers) Geo-engineering Location: Auditorium 8 |
|
|
The question concerning planetary technology: geo-engineering, sustainable technology, planetary boundaries, and the end of the Earth Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands, The Do artifacts have eco-politics? A convivial critique of environmental techno-solutionism Wageningen University Environment, Technology, and Philosophy of Maintenance tu delft, Netherlands, The |
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:  Privacy Statement · Conference: SPT 2025 |
Conference Software: ConfTool Pro 2.6.153 © 2001–2025 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany |