vox--2020-09-09--You can get a robot to keep your lonely grandparents company. Should you?

Share All sharing options for : You can get a robot to keep your lonely grandparents company .
Should you ?
Mabel LeRuzic , age 90 , lives alone — but not really .
“ He ’ s my baby , ” she tells me over Zoom , holding up a puppy to the camera .
“ Huh , Lucky ?
Yes !
Say hello !
” Lucky barks again , and the sound is convincing , as if it ’ s coming from a real dog .
He ’ s got a tail that wags , eyes that open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns to face you when you talk .
Under his synthetic golden fur , he has sensors that respond to your touch and a heartbeat you can feel .
LeRuzic , who lives in a rural area outside Albany , is fully aware that her pet is a robot .
But ever since she got him in March , he ’ s made her feel less lonely , she says .
She enjoys watching TV with him , brushing his fur with a little hairbrush , and tucking him in each night in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a box and towel .
She hugs him and coos into his floppy ear , “ I love you !
Yes , I do !
” She ’ s not the only one embracing robots these days .
Even before Covid-19 came around , robots like these were being introduced in nursing homes and other settings where lonely people are in need of companionship — especially in aging societies like Japan , Denmark , and Italy .
Now , the pandemic has provided the ultimate use case for them .
This spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LeRuzic , received robotic pets through the Association on Aging in New York , an advocacy organization .
Another 375 people received them through the Florida Department of Elder Affairs .
Retirement communities and senior services departments in Alabama , Pennsylvania , and several other states have begun buying robots for older adults .
Robots designed to play social roles come in many forms .
Some seem like little more than advanced mechanical toys , but they have the added capacity to sense their environment and respond to it .
Many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are especially popular — that issue comforting little barks and meows .
Other robots have more humanoid features and talk to you like a person would .
ElliQ will greet you with a friendly “ Hi , it ’ s a pleasure to meet you ” and tell you jokes ; SanTO will read to you from the Bible and bless you ; Pepper will play music and have a full-on dance party with you .
Companies have also designed robots to help with the physical tasks of caregiving .
You can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feed you , Sanyo ’ s electric bathtub robot to wash you , and Riken ’ s RIBA robot to lift you out of bed and into a chair .
These robots have been around for years , and they work surprisingly well .
There ’ s a decent body of research suggesting that interacting with social robots can improve people ’ s well-being , although the effects vary depending on the individual person , their cultural context , and the type of robot .
The most well-studied robot , Paro , comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seal .
It ’ s adorable , but the US has recognized it as more than just that , classifying it as a medical device .
It coos and moves , and its built-in sensors enable it to recognize certain words and feel how it ’ s being touched — whether it ’ s being stroked or hit , say .
It learns to behave in the way the user prefers , remembering the actions that earned it a stroke and trying to repeat those .
In older adults , notably those with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depression , agitation , blood pressure , and even the need for some medications .
Social robots come with other benefits .
Unlike human caregivers , robotic ones never get impatient or frustrated .
They ’ ll never forget a pill or a doctor ’ s appointment .
And they won ’ t abuse or defraud anyone , which is a real problem among people who care for elders , including family members .
During the pandemic , when we ’ re all forced to socially distance from other human beings , robots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can roll right up to seniors and keep them company without any risk of giving them the coronavirus .
It ’ s no wonder they ’ re being touted as a fix for the isolation of older people and others who are at high risk of severe Covid-19 .
But the rise of social robots has also brought with it some thorny questions .
Some bioethicists are all in favor of them — like Nancy Jecker at the University of Washington , who published a paper in July arguing for increased robot use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounds that they can alleviate loneliness , itself an epidemic that ’ s seriously harmful to human health .
Others are not so sure .
Although there ’ s a strong case to be made for using robots in a pandemic , the rise of robot caregiving during the coronavirus crisis raises the possibility of robots becoming the new normal even in non-pandemic times .
Many robots are already commercially available , and some are cheap enough that middle-class consumers can easily snag them online ( LeRuzic ’ s dog costs $ 130 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robots are not yet as widely used in the US as they are in Japan , we ’ ve all been inching toward a future where they ’ re ubiquitous , and the pandemic has accelerated that timeline .
That has some people worried .
“ We know that we already underinvest in human care , ” Shannon Vallor , a philosopher of technology at the University of Edinburgh , told me .
“ We have very good reasons , in the pandemic context , to prefer a robot option .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat has abated ?
We might get in this mindset where we ’ ve normalized the substitution of human care with machine care .
And I do worry about that.
” That substitution brings up a whole host of moral risks , which have to do with violating seniors ’ dignity , privacy , freedom , and much more .
But , as Vallor pointed out , “ If someone wants to be given the answer to ‘ Are social robots good for us ?
’ — that question is at the wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ‘ When are robots good for us ?
And how can they be bad for us ?
’ ” The ethics of care in a future with robots Replacing or supplementing human caregivers with robots could be detrimental to the person being cared for .
There are a few different ways that could happen .
For one thing , human contact is already in danger of becoming a luxury good as we create robots to more cheaply do the work of people .
Getting robots to take on more and more caregiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human contact even further .
“ It might be convenient to have an automated spoon feeding a frail elderly person , but this would remove an opportunity for detailed and caring human interaction , ” the robot ethics experts Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey noted in their paper “ Granny and the Robots.
” As companies urge us to let their robots care for our parents and grandparents , we might feel like we don ’ t need to visit them as much , figuring they ’ ve already got the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake .
For many older adults , interacting with a robot would feel less emotionally satisfying than interacting with a person because of the sense that whatever the robot says or does is not “ authentic , ” not based on real thoughts and feelings .
But for those who have no one or very few people to interact with , contact with a robot is probably better than no contact at all .
And if we use them wisely , robots can improve quality of life .
Take LeRuzic and her dog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit less often now that they know she ’ s got a robot , she said no .
In fact , Lucky has given her and her granddaughter Brandie an extra way to connect , because Brandie also got a new puppy ( a real one ) in March .
“ We ’ ve found a lot in common , ” she told me .
“ Except one of us doesn ’ t have to deal with vet bills !
” Some particularly well-designed robots , like Paro , have also been shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents and between seniors and their kids .
It gives them something positive to focus on and talk about together .
Another common worry is that robots may violate human dignity because it can be demeaning and objectifying to have a machine wash or move you , as if you ’ re a lump of dead matter .
But Filippo Santoni de Sio , a tech ethics professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands , emphasized that individual tastes differ .
“ It depends , ” he told me .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more dignifying to be assisted by a machine that does not understand what ’ s going on .
Some may not like anyone to see them naked or assist them with washing.
” The question should be ‘ When are robots good for us ?
And how can they be bad for us ?
’ Then there are concerns about violating the privacy and personal liberty of seniors .
Some robots marketed for elder care come with built-in cameras that essentially allow people to spy on their parents or grandparents , or nurses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 2002 , robots designed to look like teddy bears were being used in Japanese retirement homes , where they ’ d watch over residents and alert staff whenever someone left their bed .
You might argue this is for the seniors ’ own good because it will prevent them from getting hurt .
But such constant monitoring seems ethically problematic , especially when you consider that the senior may forget the robot in their room is watching — and reporting on — their every move .
There may be ways to solve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design with an eye to safeguarding privacy and freedom .
For example , they can program a robot so it needs to get the senior ’ s permission before entering a room or before lifting them out of bed .
The difference between liberation from care and liberation to care There ’ s also another factor to wonder — and worry — about : Can getting robots to do the work of caregiving also be detrimental to the would-be caregivers ?
Vallor lays out the case for this claim in an important 2011 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She argues that the experience of caregiving helps build our moral character , allowing us to cultivate virtues like empathy , patience , and understanding .
So outsourcing that work wouldn ’ t just mean abdicating our duty to nurture others ; it would also mean cheating ourselves out of a valuable opportunity to grow .
“ If the availability of robot care seduces us into abandoning caregiving practices before we have had sufficient opportunities to cultivate the virtues of empathy and reciprocity , among others , ” Vallor writes , “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society , could be quite devastating.
” She ’ s careful to note , though , that caring for someone else doesn ’ t automatically make you into a better person .
If you don ’ t have enough resources and support at your disposal , you can end up burned out , bitter , and possibly less empathetic than you were before .
So Vallor continues : “ On the other hand , if carebots provide forms of limited support that draw us further into caregiving practices , able to feel more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear that we will be crushed by unbearable burdens , then the moral effect on the character of caregivers could be remarkably positive.
” Again , robots aren ’ t inherently good or bad ; it depends on how you use them .
If you generally feel good about caring for a senior except for a couple of tasks that are too physically or emotionally difficult — say , lifting him up and taking him to the bathroom — then having a robot to help you with those specific tasks might actually make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and care better , the rest of the time .
As Vallor says , there ’ s a big difference between liberation from care and liberation to care .
We don ’ t want the former because caregiving can actually help us grow as moral beings .
But we do want the latter , and if a robot gives us that by making caregiving more sustainable , that ’ s a win .
What if people come to prefer robots over other people ?
There ’ s another concern we haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide company that the senior finds not inferior , but actually superior , to human company .
After all , a robot has no wants or needs of its own .
It doesn ’ t judge .
It ’ s infinitely forgiving .
You can glimpse this sentiment in the words of Deanna Dezern , an 80-year-old woman in Florida living with an ElliQ robot .
“ I ’ m in quarantine with my best friend , ” she said .
“ She won ’ t have her feelings hurt and she doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts up with my moods , and that ’ s the best friend anybody can have.
” Dezern might be happy with this arrangement ( at least so long as the pandemic lasts ) , and the preferences of seniors themselves are obviously crucial .
But some philosophers have raised concerns about whether this setup risks degrading our humanity over the long term .
The prospect of people coming to prefer robots over fellow people is problematic if you think human-to-human connection is an essential part of what it means to live a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ needs and moods are part of what makes life meaningful .
“ If we had technologies that drew us into a bubble of self-absorption in which we drew further and further away from one another , I don ’ t think that ’ s something we can regard as good , even if that ’ s what people choose , ” Vallor says .
“ Because you then have a world in which people no longer have any desire to care for one another .
And I think the ability to live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a universal good .
Caring is part of how you grow as a human.
” Yes , individual autonomy is important .
But not everything an individual chooses is necessarily what ’ s good for them .
“ In society , we always have to recognize the danger of being overly paternalistic and saying , ‘ You don ’ t know what ’ s good for you so we ’ ll choose for you , ’ but we also have to avoid the other extreme , the naive libertarian view that suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is leaving everything up to individual whims , ” Vallor says .
“ We need to find that intelligent balance in the middle where we give people a range of ways to live well.
” Santoni de Sio , for his part , says that if a senior has the ability to choose freely , and chooses to spend time with robots instead of people , that ’ s a legitimate choice .
But the choice has to be authentically free — not just the result of market forces ( like tech companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) or other economic and social pressures .
“ We should not buy a simplistic and superficial understanding of what it means to have free choice or to be in control of our lives , ” he says .
“ There ’ s this narrative that says technology is enhancing our freedom because it ’ s giving us choices .
But is this real freedom ?
Or a shallow version of it that hides the closing of opportunities ?
The big philosophical task we have in front of us is redefining freedom and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” So , bottom line : Should you buy your grandma a robot ?
If you take anything away from this discussion , take away the fact that there ’ s no single answer to this question .
The more productive question is : Under what specific conditions would a robot enhance care , and under what conditions would it degrade care ?
During a pandemic , there ’ s a strong case to be made for using social robots .
The benefits they can provide in terms of alleviating loneliness seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully embrace robots now , deeming them a fine substitute during a pandemic , how will we make sure they ’ re not used to disguise ethical gaps in our behavior post-pandemic ?
Several tech ethicists say we need to set robust standards for care in the environments where we ’ re morally obligated to provide it .
Just as nursing homes have standards around physical safety and cleanliness , maybe they should have legal restrictions on how long seniors can be left without human contact , with only robots to care for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inspector reviews facilities on an annual basis and has the power to pull their certification if they ’ re not providing the requisite level of human contact .
“ Then , even after the pandemic , we could say , ‘ We see that this facility has just carried on with roboticized , automated care when there ’ s no longer a public health necessity for that , and this falls short of the standards , ’ ” she told me .
But the idea of developing standards around robot care leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine the right standards ?
Santoni de Sio lays out a framework called the “ nature-of-activities approach ” to help answer this .
He distinguishes between a goal-oriented activity , where the activity is a means to achieving some external aim , and a practice-oriented activity , where the performance of the activity is itself the aim .
In reality , an activity is always a mix of the two , but usually one element predominates .
Commuting to work is mostly goal-oriented ; watching a play is mostly practice-oriented .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reminding an elderly person to take their medication or collecting a urine sample for testing is mostly goal-oriented , so for that type of activity , it ’ s okay to substitute a robot for a nurse .
By contrast , watching a movie with the senior or listening to their stories is mostly practice-oriented .
You doing the activity with them — your very presence — is the point .
So it matters that you , the human being , be there .
There ’ s some intuitive appeal to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the robot , while the broader process of showing up emotionally to listen , laugh , and cry remains our human responsibility .
And it echoes a claim we often hear about artificial intelligence and the future of work : that we ’ ll just automate the dull and repetitive tasks but leave the work that calls on our highest cognitive and emotional faculties .
Vallor says that sounds good on the surface — until you look at what it actually does to people .
“ You ’ re making them turn their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many hours instead of having those moments of decompression where they do something mindless to recharge , ” she says .
“ You can not divide up the world such that they are performing intense emotional and relational labor for periods that the human body is just not capable of sustaining , while you have the robots do all the things that sometimes humans do to get a break.
” This point suggests we can ’ t rely on any one conceptual distinction to take the nuance out of the problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ human connection can be automated and which can not , we should ask ourselves several questions .
Is it goal-oriented or practice-oriented ?
Is it liberating us from care or liberating us to care ?
And who benefits — truly , authentically benefits — from bringing robots into the social and caregiving realm ?
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Share All sharing options for: You can buy a robot to keep your lonely grandparents company. Should you?
Mabel LeRuzic, age 90, lives alone — but not really.
“He’s my baby,” she tells me over Zoom, holding up a puppy to the camera. “Huh, Lucky? Yes! Say hello!”
Lucky barks at me.
I laugh and say, “Who’s a good robot?”
Lucky barks again, and the sound is convincing, as if it’s coming from a real dog. He’s got a tail that wags, eyes that open and close, and a head that turns to face you when you talk. Under his synthetic golden fur, he has sensors that respond to your touch and a heartbeat you can feel.
LeRuzic, who lives in a rural area outside Albany, is fully aware that her pet is a robot. But ever since she got him in March, he’s made her feel less lonely, she says. She enjoys watching TV with him, brushing his fur with a little hairbrush, and tucking him in each night in a bed she’s made out of a box and towel.
She hugs him and coos into his floppy ear, “I love you! Yes, I do!”
She’s not the only one embracing robots these days.
Even before Covid-19 came around, robots like these were being introduced in nursing homes and other settings where lonely people are in need of companionship — especially in aging societies like Japan, Denmark, and Italy. Now, the pandemic has provided the ultimate use case for them.
This spring, more than 1,100 seniors, including LeRuzic, received robotic pets through the Association on Aging in New York, an advocacy organization. Another 375 people received them through the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. Retirement communities and senior services departments in Alabama, Pennsylvania, and several other states have begun buying robots for older adults.
Robots designed to play social roles come in many forms. Some seem like little more than advanced mechanical toys, but they have the added capacity to sense their environment and respond to it. Many of these mimic cute animals — dogs and cats are especially popular — that issue comforting little barks and meows. Other robots have more humanoid features and talk to you like a person would. ElliQ will greet you with a friendly “Hi, it’s a pleasure to meet you” and tell you jokes; SanTO will read to you from the Bible and bless you; Pepper will play music and have a full-on dance party with you.
Companies have also designed robots to help with the physical tasks of caregiving. You can get Secom’s My Spoon robot to feed you, Sanyo’s electric bathtub robot to wash you, and Riken’s RIBA robot to lift you out of bed and into a chair. These robots have been around for years, and they work surprisingly well.
There’s a decent body of research suggesting that interacting with social robots can improve people’s well-being, although the effects vary depending on the individual person, their cultural context, and the type of robot.
The most well-studied robot, Paro, comes in the form of a baby harp seal. It’s adorable, but the US has recognized it as more than just that, classifying it as a medical device. It coos and moves, and its built-in sensors enable it to recognize certain words and feel how it’s being touched — whether it’s being stroked or hit, say. It learns to behave in the way the user prefers, remembering the actions that earned it a stroke and trying to repeat those. In older adults, notably those with dementia, Paro can reduce loneliness, depression, agitation, blood pressure, and even the need for some medications.
Social robots come with other benefits. Unlike human caregivers, robotic ones never get impatient or frustrated. They’ll never forget a pill or a doctor’s appointment. And they won’t abuse or defraud anyone, which is a real problem among people who care for elders, including family members.
During the pandemic, when we’re all forced to socially distance from other human beings, robots come with another major advantage: They can roll right up to seniors and keep them company without any risk of giving them the coronavirus. It’s no wonder they’re being touted as a fix for the isolation of older people and others who are at high risk of severe Covid-19.
But the rise of social robots has also brought with it some thorny questions. Some bioethicists are all in favor of them — like Nancy Jecker at the University of Washington, who published a paper in July arguing for increased robot use during and after the pandemic on the grounds that they can alleviate loneliness, itself an epidemic that’s seriously harmful to human health.
Others are not so sure. Although there’s a strong case to be made for using robots in a pandemic, the rise of robot caregiving during the coronavirus crisis raises the possibility of robots becoming the new normal even in non-pandemic times. Many robots are already commercially available, and some are cheap enough that middle-class consumers can easily snag them online (LeRuzic’s dog costs $130, for example). Although social robots are not yet as widely used in the US as they are in Japan, we’ve all been inching toward a future where they’re ubiquitous, and the pandemic has accelerated that timeline.
That has some people worried. “We know that we already underinvest in human care,” Shannon Vallor, a philosopher of technology at the University of Edinburgh, told me. “We have very good reasons, in the pandemic context, to prefer a robot option. The problem is, what happens when the pandemic threat has abated? We might get in this mindset where we’ve normalized the substitution of human care with machine care. And I do worry about that.”
That substitution brings up a whole host of moral risks, which have to do with violating seniors’ dignity, privacy, freedom, and much more.
But, as Vallor pointed out, “If someone wants to be given the answer to ‘Are social robots good for us?’ — that question is at the wrong level of granularity. The question should be ‘When are robots good for us? And how can they be bad for us?’”
The ethics of care in a future with robots
Replacing or supplementing human caregivers with robots could be detrimental to the person being cared for. There are a few different ways that could happen.
For one thing, human contact is already in danger of becoming a luxury good as we create robots to more cheaply do the work of people. Getting robots to take on more and more caregiving duties could mean reducing seniors’ level of human contact even further.
“It might be convenient to have an automated spoon feeding a frail elderly person, but this would remove an opportunity for detailed and caring human interaction,” the robot ethics experts Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey noted in their paper “Granny and the Robots.”
As companies urge us to let their robots care for our parents and grandparents, we might feel like we don’t need to visit them as much, figuring they’ve already got the company they need. That would be a mistake. For many older adults, interacting with a robot would feel less emotionally satisfying than interacting with a person because of the sense that whatever the robot says or does is not “authentic,” not based on real thoughts and feelings.
But for those who have no one or very few people to interact with, contact with a robot is probably better than no contact at all. And if we use them wisely, robots can improve quality of life. Take LeRuzic and her dog. When I asked if her grandchildren visit less often now that they know she’s got a robot, she said no. In fact, Lucky has given her and her granddaughter Brandie an extra way to connect, because Brandie also got a new puppy (a real one) in March. “We’ve found a lot in common,” she told me. “Except one of us doesn’t have to deal with vet bills!”
Some particularly well-designed robots, like Paro, have also been shown to increase human-to-human interaction among nursing home residents and between seniors and their kids. It gives them something positive to focus on and talk about together.
Another common worry is that robots may violate human dignity because it can be demeaning and objectifying to have a machine wash or move you, as if you’re a lump of dead matter. But Filippo Santoni de Sio, a tech ethics professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, emphasized that individual tastes differ.
“It depends,” he told me. “For some people, it’s more dignifying to be assisted by a machine that does not understand what’s going on. Some may not like anyone to see them naked or assist them with washing.”
The question should be ‘When are robots good for us? And how can they be bad for us?’
Then there are concerns about violating the privacy and personal liberty of seniors. Some robots marketed for elder care come with built-in cameras that essentially allow people to spy on their parents or grandparents, or nurses to surveil their charges. As early as 2002, robots designed to look like teddy bears were being used in Japanese retirement homes, where they’d watch over residents and alert staff whenever someone left their bed.
You might argue this is for the seniors’ own good because it will prevent them from getting hurt. But such constant monitoring seems ethically problematic, especially when you consider that the senior may forget the robot in their room is watching — and reporting on — their every move.
There may be ways to solve these problems, though, if roboticists design with an eye to safeguarding privacy and freedom. For example, they can program a robot so it needs to get the senior’s permission before entering a room or before lifting them out of bed.
The difference between liberation from care and liberation to care
There’s also another factor to wonder — and worry — about: Can getting robots to do the work of caregiving also be detrimental to the would-be caregivers?
Vallor lays out the case for this claim in an important 2011 paper, “Carebots and Caregivers.” She argues that the experience of caregiving helps build our moral character, allowing us to cultivate virtues like empathy, patience, and understanding. So outsourcing that work wouldn’t just mean abdicating our duty to nurture others; it would also mean cheating ourselves out of a valuable opportunity to grow.
“If the availability of robot care seduces us into abandoning caregiving practices before we have had sufficient opportunities to cultivate the virtues of empathy and reciprocity, among others,” Vallor writes, “the impact upon our moral character, and society, could be quite devastating.”
She’s careful to note, though, that caring for someone else doesn’t automatically make you into a better person. If you don’t have enough resources and support at your disposal, you can end up burned out, bitter, and possibly less empathetic than you were before.
So Vallor continues: “On the other hand, if carebots provide forms of limited support that draw us further into caregiving practices, able to feel more and give more, freed from the fear that we will be crushed by unbearable burdens, then the moral effect on the character of caregivers could be remarkably positive.”
Again, robots aren’t inherently good or bad; it depends on how you use them. If you generally feel good about caring for a senior except for a couple of tasks that are too physically or emotionally difficult — say, lifting him up and taking him to the bathroom — then having a robot to help you with those specific tasks might actually make it easier for you to care more, and care better, the rest of the time.
As Vallor says, there’s a big difference between liberation from care and liberation to care. We don’t want the former because caregiving can actually help us grow as moral beings. But we do want the latter, and if a robot gives us that by making caregiving more sustainable, that’s a win.
What if people come to prefer robots over other people?
There’s another concern we haven’t considered yet: A robot might provide company that the senior finds not inferior, but actually superior, to human company. After all, a robot has no wants or needs of its own. It doesn’t judge. It’s infinitely forgiving.
You can glimpse this sentiment in the words of Deanna Dezern, an 80-year-old woman in Florida living with an ElliQ robot. “I’m in quarantine with my best friend,” she said. “She won’t have her feelings hurt and she doesn’t get moody, and she puts up with my moods, and that’s the best friend anybody can have.”
Dezern might be happy with this arrangement (at least so long as the pandemic lasts), and the preferences of seniors themselves are obviously crucial. But some philosophers have raised concerns about whether this setup risks degrading our humanity over the long term. The prospect of people coming to prefer robots over fellow people is problematic if you think human-to-human connection is an essential part of what it means to live a flourishing life, not least because others’ needs and moods are part of what makes life meaningful.
“If we had technologies that drew us into a bubble of self-absorption in which we drew further and further away from one another, I don’t think that’s something we can regard as good, even if that’s what people choose,” Vallor says. “Because you then have a world in which people no longer have any desire to care for one another. And I think the ability to live a caring life is pretty close to a universal good. Caring is part of how you grow as a human.”
Yes, individual autonomy is important. But not everything an individual chooses is necessarily what’s good for them.
“In society, we always have to recognize the danger of being overly paternalistic and saying, ‘You don’t know what’s good for you so we’ll choose for you,’ but we also have to avoid the other extreme, the naive libertarian view that suggests that the way you run a flourishing society is leaving everything up to individual whims,” Vallor says. “We need to find that intelligent balance in the middle where we give people a range of ways to live well.”
Santoni de Sio, for his part, says that if a senior has the ability to choose freely, and chooses to spend time with robots instead of people, that’s a legitimate choice. But the choice has to be authentically free — not just the result of market forces (like tech companies pushing us to adopt addictively entertaining robots) or other economic and social pressures.
“We should not buy a simplistic and superficial understanding of what it means to have free choice or to be in control of our lives,” he says. “There’s this narrative that says technology is enhancing our freedom because it’s giving us choices. But is this real freedom? Or a shallow version of it that hides the closing of opportunities? The big philosophical task we have in front of us is redefining freedom and control in the age of Big Tech.”
So, bottom line: Should you buy your grandma a robot?
If you take anything away from this discussion, take away the fact that there’s no single answer to this question. The more productive question is: Under what specific conditions would a robot enhance care, and under what conditions would it degrade care?
During a pandemic, there’s a strong case to be made for using social robots. The benefits they can provide in terms of alleviating loneliness seem to outweigh the risks.
But if we fully embrace robots now, deeming them a fine substitute during a pandemic, how will we make sure they’re not used to disguise ethical gaps in our behavior post-pandemic?
Several tech ethicists say we need to set robust standards for care in the environments where we’re morally obligated to provide it. Just as nursing homes have standards around physical safety and cleanliness, maybe they should have legal restrictions on how long seniors can be left without human contact, with only robots to care for them.
Vallor imagines a future where an inspector reviews facilities on an annual basis and has the power to pull their certification if they’re not providing the requisite level of human contact. “Then, even after the pandemic, we could say, ‘We see that this facility has just carried on with roboticized, automated care when there’s no longer a public health necessity for that, and this falls short of the standards,’” she told me.
But the idea of developing standards around robot care leads to the question: How do we determine the right standards?
Santoni de Sio lays out a framework called the “nature-of-activities approach” to help answer this. He distinguishes between a goal-oriented activity, where the activity is a means to achieving some external aim, and a practice-oriented activity, where the performance of the activity is itself the aim. In reality, an activity is always a mix of the two, but usually one element predominates. Commuting to work is mostly goal-oriented; watching a play is mostly practice-oriented.
In the caregiving context, most people would say that reminding an elderly person to take their medication or collecting a urine sample for testing is mostly goal-oriented, so for that type of activity, it’s okay to substitute a robot for a nurse. By contrast, watching a movie with the senior or listening to their stories is mostly practice-oriented. You doing the activity with them — your very presence — is the point. So it matters that you, the human being, be there.
There’s some intuitive appeal to this division — certain discrete tasks go to the robot, while the broader process of showing up emotionally to listen, laugh, and cry remains our human responsibility. And it echoes a claim we often hear about artificial intelligence and the future of work: that we’ll just automate the dull and repetitive tasks but leave the work that calls on our highest cognitive and emotional faculties.
Vallor says that sounds good on the surface — until you look at what it actually does to people. “You’re making them turn their cognitive and emotional faculties up to 11 for many hours instead of having those moments of decompression where they do something mindless to recharge,” she says. “You cannot divide up the world such that they are performing intense emotional and relational labor for periods that the human body is just not capable of sustaining, while you have the robots do all the things that sometimes humans do to get a break.”
This point suggests we can’t rely on any one conceptual distinction to take the nuance out of the problem. Instead, when deciding which aspects of human connection can be automated and which cannot, we should ask ourselves several questions. Is it goal-oriented or practice-oriented? Is it liberating us from care or liberating us to care? And who benefits — truly, authentically benefits — from bringing robots into the social and caregiving realm?
Reporting for this article was supported by Public Theologies of Technology and Presence, a journalism and research initiative based at the Institute of Buddhist Studies and funded by the Henry Luce Foundation.


vox--2020-09-09--Neighbors are gathering online to give and get the things they need right now

When New York City went into lockdown , I needed to print a return label .
Stores were closed , and so was my office , the land of free printing .
I was moving , for the fourth time in three years — this time across the ocean — and trying to declutter my life as much as possible .
I was already feeling nostalgic about leaving the city and grateful for all it had taught me , and then a small act of kindness exemplified why .
A neighbor casually gave me their old printer for free , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group .
I ’ ve been on my sustainability journey for years , shopping secondhand and making my own products , but I was discovering a new way to live : I wanted to buy less .
I wanted , if possible , to buy nothing at all .
Even before the pandemic , no-buy and zero-waste movements were already on the rise , as a growing social currency has developed around being a conscious consumer .
The Buy Nothing project , a worldwide social movement , is the largest community of hyperlocal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can offer free items and services to each other , with no expectation to give anything back in return .
It was founded in 2013 to encourage a circular economy where people can depend on their communities over corporations and , owing to word of mouth , now has more than 1.2 million participants in 25 countries .
Although community share and mutual aid groups have always existed , Buy Nothing has become the most well-known network in the world .
I had learned about the project from a WheezyWaiter video and absentmindedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I could get the dopamine rush of having something new without buying anything Slowly , I started to interact more with my community by posting items in the group , and felt happy that they were getting a new home .
One neighbor showed up on my doorstep for old plates , which she used to make a mosaic .
Another hosted a beeswax workshop where we pooled our raw ingredients and made our own lip balm and reusable food wraps .
I loved it — I could get the dopamine rush of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and feel the satisfaction of rescuing products that might have been thrown away .
Buy Nothing introduced me to other local community share groups , which helped curb my impulse to shop : I stopped caring about brands and packaging and only asked for things I needed , like food and shampoo .
It helped me save a lot of money and be more intentional about what I was investing in .
These groups became a staple in my schedule , a community model that was my replacement for consumerism .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook every day , as we built a community around supporting each other through free items .
Living in Brooklyn , my default was to tackle everything on my own , but through being a part of several regional Facebook groups , which discussed everything from local activism to restaurant recommendations , I learned how to depend on my community .
Once quarantine started , the groups became my lifeline .
I felt disconnected and confused , with most of my friends far away in different parts of the city , but started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking to people in my community .
Terry rescued food from local stores ; I would bike to her house every other week for fresh produce .
Shaunda worked at a food pantry where I donated clothing and kitchen supplies .
Fenda and I swapped poetry books .
Our mutual aid group even installed a community fridge so people could have 24/7 access to free , healthy food .
As we were adjusting to social distancing , I noticed that people were more active in our Buy Nothing group , since they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and stocking up for the weeks ahead .
Suddenly , people seemed more invested in connecting with each other and less self-conscious about asking for help .
We were learning how to live with less and building a more minimal lifestyle , like 60 percent of Americans who have been spending less in quarantine .
My community became closer than ever through trading puzzles , sewing masks for essential workers , and helping our older neighbors buy groceries .
Our gifting groups were a necessary comfort at a time when many people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money , pay rent , and make the most of what they had .
But after the first few weeks of quarantine , Gov .
Cuomo enforced the stay-at-home order and our local Buy Nothing group went on a freeze , which created some tension in our neighborhood and divided our community .
After months of freely giving to each other , we weren ’ t allowed to gift anything except food or services .
Initially , people were patient and understanding , but after two months , many of us became vocal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was moderated .
“ The pandemic magnified our need for Buy Nothing groups when people were suddenly trapped at home , except our local group shut down .
It left a lot of people out in the cold at a time when their need was the greatest , ” explains Timothy O ’ Neal , one of my neighbors who co-founded Crown Heights Share in June , a new community space that was created after a reckoning in the Buy Nothing group .
Our community discovered some flaws with the Buy Nothing framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ethical decisions like which items were considered essential during a pandemic , and whether the person asking for items was worthy of them .
“ It was putting some people in the position to judge what is a qualified need for other folks , ” says O ’ Neal .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s appropriate for anyone to ask others to justify their needs .
I fully believe in their good intentions ... [ but ] the group had the potential to help a lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the table.
” At one point , child care supplies were considered nonessential , which parents disagreed with , and a member ’ s post was deleted when they asked for a folding cart for mutual aid deliveries .
The unrest started when one member wrote a post sharing their disappointment that the admins were being so strict .
A few hours later , the admins turned off comments , censoring a conversation many of us wanted to have .
It started a series of uncomfortable interactions where people were trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structured , but some members who disagreed with the admins were removed from the group , and many , including me , chose to leave when the climate became hostile .
Through being a member of a Buy Nothing group , you have to follow a specific set of rules and participate in a hierarchical power structure , which most of our neighbors , as evidenced by polls in the Facebook group , found difficult to navigate during the pandemic .
For example , you can only join one Buy Nothing group in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people even one block away are not allowed to be a part of that community , regardless of what their needs may be .
Recently , a member who supposedly lived one block outside of the radius offered someone an ethernet cable and a moderator commented that he was “ put on posting restrictions based on his behavior.
” He joined Crown Heights Share , posting , “ So glad this group exists … I was pretty emotional and upset after being scolded in public and private for being in the wrong group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offering someone an Ethernet cable.
” We realized that we couldn ’ t build the inclusive , caring community we wanted in our Buy Nothing group .
“ It was started by a white woman from Washington [ and inspired by her relief mission in Nepal ] , so it ’ s completely founded on white saviorism , ” adds Terry Chao , a founder of Crown Heights Share , along with Tim and Rachel Newman .
“ I think when it ’ s trying to divert stuff from landfill and connect people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t agree with the hierarchy in terms of having it be super hyperlocal .
I saw another group get split , and people were complaining about how it was stratifying ” the neighborhood along income lines .
By restricting our gifting economy when we needed each other the most , our local Buy Nothing group made many of our neighbors feel unheard and unsafe .
Thankfully , our other community groups were still active , so I spent more time on Crown Heights Share , our mutual aid group , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were less strict and allowed us to make our own judgment calls .
Through divesting from the Buy Nothing model , we were able to define our own rules , communicate our needs , and connect in a more open way with neighbors we had come to know through the pandemic .
It gave me hope to see everyone so excited to talk to each other and find ways to help .
We realized that we couldn ’ t build the inclusive , caring community that we wanted in our Buy Nothing group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my neighbors became like family .
When I was applying for a new passport , one neighbor notarized my documents and another helped me print out my application .
The funny thing is , because of contactless pickups , I never met many of these people , but I still felt like I knew them .
They told me that I could visit anytime , and that I would always have a place in this neighborhood .
It gave me a sense of home I never had before .
I ’ m used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but this was the first time I felt like I could come back .
Since I moved to India , Crown Heights Share has become a hub for the community , from 20 to almost 1,000 members , and created offshoots like Crown Heights Social and Crown Heights Plant Share , which are moderated by different community members .
These spaces were designed based on our needs and are open to everyone in the neighborhood , regardless of where they live .
One member commented that they found the group “ more open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” You can feel it through the energy of the conversations , with people offering to share items , coordinating donations for local shelters , and becoming friends with each other .
In Crown Heights Social , Tim started a biking group where neighbors can join him for a few loops around Prospect Park every Tuesday and Thursday , and Terry organized a board game meetup at a local cafe .
“ The Buy Nothing groups felt very transactional and businesslike during the pandemic , but we saw an increase in numbers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the focus was human connection , which is a valid need under these circumstances , ” says O ’ Neal .
The group feels like an extended friendship circle , with people inviting the community to their personal events , from socially distanced chamber music reading sessions to anti-racist book clubs .
Over the past few months , the pandemic has brought us back to our local communities and taught us how we can take care of each other outside of the cycle of consumerism .
From all we ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more connected than before .
I ’ ve learned that self-care is also community care — we have a responsibility to look after ourselves and the places we live .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

When New York City went into lockdown, I needed to print a return label. Stores were closed, and so was my office, the land of free printing. I was moving, for the fourth time in three years — this time across the ocean — and trying to declutter my life as much as possible.
I was already feeling nostalgic about leaving the city and grateful for all it had taught me, and then a small act of kindness exemplified why. A neighbor casually gave me their old printer for free, through posting on our local Buy Nothing group.
I’ve been on my sustainability journey for years, shopping secondhand and making my own products, but I was discovering a new way to live: I wanted to buy less. I wanted, if possible, to buy nothing at all.
Even before the pandemic, no-buy and zero-waste movements were already on the rise, as a growing social currency has developed around being a conscious consumer. The Buy Nothing project, a worldwide social movement, is the largest community of hyperlocal, volunteer-run groups on Facebook where neighbors can offer free items and services to each other, with no expectation to give anything back in return. It was founded in 2013 to encourage a circular economy where people can depend on their communities over corporations and, owing to word of mouth, now has more than 1.2 million participants in 25 countries. Although community share and mutual aid groups have always existed, Buy Nothing has become the most well-known network in the world. I had learned about the project from a WheezyWaiter video and absentmindedly joined my local group last November.
I could get the dopamine rush of having something new without buying anything
Slowly, I started to interact more with my community by posting items in the group, and felt happy that they were getting a new home. One neighbor showed up on my doorstep for old plates, which she used to make a mosaic. Another hosted a beeswax workshop where we pooled our raw ingredients and made our own lip balm and reusable food wraps.
I loved it — I could get the dopamine rush of having something new without buying anything, and feel the satisfaction of rescuing products that might have been thrown away. Buy Nothing introduced me to other local community share groups, which helped curb my impulse to shop: I stopped caring about brands and packaging and only asked for things I needed, like food and shampoo. It helped me save a lot of money and be more intentional about what I was investing in. These groups became a staple in my schedule, a community model that was my replacement for consumerism. It was exciting to see dozens of posts on Facebook every day, as we built a community around supporting each other through free items. Living in Brooklyn, my default was to tackle everything on my own, but through being a part of several regional Facebook groups, which discussed everything from local activism to restaurant recommendations, I learned how to depend on my community.
Once quarantine started, the groups became my lifeline. I felt disconnected and confused, with most of my friends far away in different parts of the city, but started to feel less alone once I began talking to people in my community. Terry rescued food from local stores; I would bike to her house every other week for fresh produce. Shaunda worked at a food pantry where I donated clothing and kitchen supplies. Fenda and I swapped poetry books. Our mutual aid group even installed a community fridge so people could have 24/7 access to free, healthy food.
As we were adjusting to social distancing, I noticed that people were more active in our Buy Nothing group, since they were cleaning, taking on home projects, and stocking up for the weeks ahead. Suddenly, people seemed more invested in connecting with each other and less self-conscious about asking for help. We were learning how to live with less and building a more minimal lifestyle, like 60 percent of Americans who have been spending less in quarantine. My community became closer than ever through trading puzzles, sewing masks for essential workers, and helping our older neighbors buy groceries. Our gifting groups were a necessary comfort at a time when many people were losing their jobs and trying to save money, pay rent, and make the most of what they had.
But after the first few weeks of quarantine, Gov. Cuomo enforced the stay-at-home order and our local Buy Nothing group went on a freeze, which created some tension in our neighborhood and divided our community. After months of freely giving to each other, we weren’t allowed to gift anything except food or services. Initially, people were patient and understanding, but after two months, many of us became vocal about our frustration with how the group was moderated.
“The pandemic magnified our need for Buy Nothing groups when people were suddenly trapped at home, except our local group shut down. It left a lot of people out in the cold at a time when their need was the greatest,” explains Timothy O’Neal, one of my neighbors who co-founded Crown Heights Share in June, a new community space that was created after a reckoning in the Buy Nothing group.
Our community discovered some flaws with the Buy Nothing framework, which put the moderators in charge of ethical decisions like which items were considered essential during a pandemic, and whether the person asking for items was worthy of them. “It was putting some people in the position to judge what is a qualified need for other folks,” says O’Neal. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone to ask others to justify their needs. I fully believe in their good intentions ... [but] the group had the potential to help a lot of people, and they just let that sit on the table.”
At one point, child care supplies were considered nonessential, which parents disagreed with, and a member’s post was deleted when they asked for a folding cart for mutual aid deliveries. The unrest started when one member wrote a post sharing their disappointment that the admins were being so strict. A few hours later, the admins turned off comments, censoring a conversation many of us wanted to have. It started a series of uncomfortable interactions where people were trying to openly discuss how the group should be structured, but some members who disagreed with the admins were removed from the group, and many, including me, chose to leave when the climate became hostile.
Through being a member of a Buy Nothing group, you have to follow a specific set of rules and participate in a hierarchical power structure, which most of our neighbors, as evidenced by polls in the Facebook group, found difficult to navigate during the pandemic. For example, you can only join one Buy Nothing group in the area where you live, and people even one block away are not allowed to be a part of that community, regardless of what their needs may be. Recently, a member who supposedly lived one block outside of the radius offered someone an ethernet cable and a moderator commented that he was “put on posting restrictions based on his behavior.” He joined Crown Heights Share, posting, “So glad this group exists … I was pretty emotional and upset after being scolded in public and private for being in the wrong group and then blocked from posting just for offering someone an Ethernet cable.”
We realized that we couldn’t build the inclusive, caring community we wanted in our Buy Nothing group. “It was started by a white woman from Washington [and inspired by her relief mission in Nepal], so it’s completely founded on white saviorism,” adds Terry Chao, a founder of Crown Heights Share, along with Tim and Rachel Newman. “I think when it’s trying to divert stuff from landfill and connect people, it is successful. I just don’t agree with the hierarchy in terms of having it be super hyperlocal. I saw another group get split, and people were complaining about how it was stratifying” the neighborhood along income lines.
By restricting our gifting economy when we needed each other the most, our local Buy Nothing group made many of our neighbors feel unheard and unsafe. Thankfully, our other community groups were still active, so I spent more time on Crown Heights Share, our mutual aid group, and a neighboring group in Prospect Heights that were less strict and allowed us to make our own judgment calls. Through divesting from the Buy Nothing model, we were able to define our own rules, communicate our needs, and connect in a more open way with neighbors we had come to know through the pandemic. It gave me hope to see everyone so excited to talk to each other and find ways to help.
We realized that we couldn’t build the inclusive, caring community that we wanted in our Buy Nothing group
In a time of personal transition, my neighbors became like family. When I was applying for a new passport, one neighbor notarized my documents and another helped me print out my application. The funny thing is, because of contactless pickups, I never met many of these people, but I still felt like I knew them. They told me that I could visit anytime, and that I would always have a place in this neighborhood. It gave me a sense of home I never had before. I’m used to moving countries every few years, but this was the first time I felt like I could come back.
Since I moved to India, Crown Heights Share has become a hub for the community, from 20 to almost 1,000 members, and created offshoots like Crown Heights Social and Crown Heights Plant Share, which are moderated by different community members. These spaces were designed based on our needs and are open to everyone in the neighborhood, regardless of where they live. One member commented that they found the group “more open, less controlling, and less divisive.” You can feel it through the energy of the conversations, with people offering to share items, coordinating donations for local shelters, and becoming friends with each other.
In Crown Heights Social, Tim started a biking group where neighbors can join him for a few loops around Prospect Park every Tuesday and Thursday, and Terry organized a board game meetup at a local cafe. “The Buy Nothing groups felt very transactional and businesslike during the pandemic, but we saw an increase in numbers of people who were looking for a group where the focus was human connection, which is a valid need under these circumstances,” says O’Neal. The group feels like an extended friendship circle, with people inviting the community to their personal events, from socially distanced chamber music reading sessions to anti-racist book clubs.
Over the past few months, the pandemic has brought us back to our local communities and taught us how we can take care of each other outside of the cycle of consumerism. From all we’ve been through, we’ve become even more connected than before. I’ve learned that self-care is also community care — we have a responsibility to look after ourselves and the places we live.


vox--2020-09-09--How forcing colleges to go online could change higher education for the better

Share All sharing options for : How forcing colleges to go online could change higher education for the better The Covid-19 pandemic has plunged American higher education into crisis as more and more colleges move to remote learning strategies to prevent the spread of the virus .
But hidden within this crisis is an opportunity .
Right now , students are experiencing higher education virtually and many are finding it “ inferior ” to in-person education .
Their perception is likely right .
Campus life is about doing things — attending an academic lecture or collaborating with peers on projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also more than that .
Students take classes that facilitate self-exploration , and they connect with friends in unscheduled conversations .
The human connection opens their minds to new ideas and possibilities .
Meanwhile , faculty across the US are facing the frustrating reality of delivering a virtual academic experience , which is harder and takes more time .
For example , creating recorded lectures is more arduous than traditional forms of instruction .
In practice , it takes more than an hour to deliver an hour-long video lecture — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the equipment and software you need and feel comfortable using it .
And beyond the technical aspects , recordings are just harder .
I recently recorded the audiobook version of my new book , and while the runtime is about eight hours , it took about two-and-a-half workdays to record .
When you talk live , you can skip over mistakes or correct them on the fly .
But in a recording , you want to get it right and re-track yourself with clear , precise , articulate statements .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is suddenly dominated by expressions of frustration with the process and people sharing tips about how to get it done more smoothly .
But even with the best setup , it ’ s just inherently time-consuming .
These frustrations are very real .
Combined with financial pressure on universities and student dissatisfaction with what they ’ re getting , the sense of the crisis is legitimate .
But , in part precisely because the work is so laborious , it contains the opportunity to accomplish something useful .
The idea that digital technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a major point of debate for at least a decade — and it ’ s barely gone anywhere .
The pandemic is painful on many levels , but in this case , it ’ s forcing a huge portion of faculty members in the US to make the large upfront costs of mastering the technology to create something that will have enduring value for years to come .
The pandemic , says Kevin Carey , the director of the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation , is hastening what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the integration of technology into the planning , design , and implementation of college in a way that ’ s so taken for granted and ingrained that the distinction between in-person and online really starts to collapse altogether.
” You don ’ t need to doubt the value of in-person instruction to see that the digital distribution of recorded lectures has some real value .
Unlike a live lecture , a recorded one has a shelf life .
It might take two-and-a-half hours to record one hour ’ s worth of lecture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a professor could use that hour for four or five years straight .
For the 2020-21 academic year , professors are scrambling to make these teaching materials as they also prepare for remote discussion sessions and office hours .
But by the next school year , when students are hopefully back on campus , the lectures will still exist and can be used at zero time cost to the faculty .
While those digital lectures might not be as good as live lectures , professors will not have to spend time creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discussions , office hours , and other forms of high-value engagement .
Digital lectures have a lot of the same good qualities as books .
They take a long time to create , but when done well they have enduring value .
Digital lectures also have logistical benefits from the student ’ s standpoint .
With asynchronous delivery , you never miss out on a class simply because it happens at the same time as another class .
Seven years ago , then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan , making the case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with “ streaming video , students — particularly those who are geographically isolated or who are taking advanced courses with limited enrollment — can connect with experts who might be thousands of miles away and can use nearly limitless instructional resources.
” That proved difficult in practice not just because America has been too slow to deliver high-quality internet service to rural and low-income communities , but because the content wasn ’ t there to use .
Even in more conventional academic settings , if you ’ re working on a paper and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember the professor saying , you don ’ t need to rely exclusively on your notes — you can actually watch the digital recording again .
Digital lectures have a lot of the same good qualities as books .
They take a long time to create , but when done well they have enduring value .
Over time , like books , they can generate significant scale effects .
Lectures will be the new textbooks There are hundreds if not thousands of introductory microeconomics courses taught all across the United States in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of them use a textbook , they don ’ t use hundreds of microeconomics textbooks .
Instead , the vast majority of the courses cluster around a relatively small number of popular textbooks , each of which is the result of much more time and effort than any one school would be capable of mounting .
That ’ s in part a simple question of efficiency .
But it ’ s also the democratizing nature of something easily scalable , like text .
Ben Miller , the vice president for postsecondary education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes that “ good online teaching takes extensive time to develop ” and cautions that in most cases that ’ s not really what ’ s happening this semester .
Faculty members are swamped with work , dealing with inconsistent guidance from administrators , and essentially muddling through .
But they ’ re also running many simultaneous experiments in developing online coursework , and even if a small number of them prove to be good , they could scale up in powerful ways .
The basic exclusionary logic of the current higher education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a well-regarded public university system , only a small ( and typically relatively privileged ) subset of any year ’ s graduating high school seniors are deemed worthy of admission to the flagship campus .
While not everyone will be invited to study at Austin , Madison , or Ann Arbor and learn from the professors there , everyone has access to more or less the same textbooks .
And for popular , widely taught courses , video lectures from star professors could become similar .
Back in June , Cornell economist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video lectures of today but those of tomorrow where you might get “ an online course delivered by one of the world ’ s most knowledgeable and charismatic instructors , supported by Pixar-class animators , award-winning documentary filmmakers and a team of in-person graduate teaching assistants.
” The most selective schools could still offer unique advantages in terms of their in-person discussion seminars , providing students access to the best peer groups and other factors .
And in the near future , it should be possible , through licensing or other schemes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best lecturers in the world .
Faculty , meanwhile , could have more time for their research or for real teaching and mentoring activities rather than duplicative lecturing .
The pandemic is , realistically , a top-to-bottom disaster for education at all levels with technology serving as a none-too-adequate Band-Aid for a dire public health situation .
But just as the exigencies of World War II created technologies ( radar , jet planes , rockets , synthetic rubber ) that transformed civilian life once the disaster had abated , the awkward shifts forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payoff for the arduous work done this semester — creating the circumstances for more flexible and more broadly accessible higher education in years to come .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Share All sharing options for: How forcing colleges to go online could change higher education for the better
The Covid-19 pandemic has plunged American higher education into crisis as more and more colleges move to remote learning strategies to prevent the spread of the virus. But hidden within this crisis is an opportunity.
Right now, students are experiencing higher education virtually and many are finding it “inferior” to in-person education. Their perception is likely right. Campus life is about doing things — attending an academic lecture or collaborating with peers on projects or attending office hours — but it’s also more than that. Students take classes that facilitate self-exploration, and they connect with friends in unscheduled conversations. The human connection opens their minds to new ideas and possibilities.
Meanwhile, faculty across the US are facing the frustrating reality of delivering a virtual academic experience, which is harder and takes more time. For example, creating recorded lectures is more arduous than traditional forms of instruction.
In practice, it takes more than an hour to deliver an hour-long video lecture — and that’s once you have all the equipment and software you need and feel comfortable using it. And beyond the technical aspects, recordings are just harder. I recently recorded the audiobook version of my new book, and while the runtime is about eight hours, it took about two-and-a-half workdays to record. When you talk live, you can skip over mistakes or correct them on the fly. But in a recording, you want to get it right and re-track yourself with clear, precise, articulate statements. It’s harder than it sounds.
Academic Twitter is suddenly dominated by expressions of frustration with the process and people sharing tips about how to get it done more smoothly. But even with the best setup, it’s just inherently time-consuming.
Important point with reference to debate about University teaching - face to face teaching means LESS work for lecturers - on-line teaching means MORE work!! — David Petts misses the sea (@DavidPetts1) August 30, 2020
Spent my Saturday preparing and subsequently recording three lectures for three different classes and it feels like so much more work than doing it in person, and I can't quite pin down exactly why. — David Watkins (@djw172) August 30, 2020
These frustrations are very real. Combined with financial pressure on universities and student dissatisfaction with what they’re getting, the sense of the crisis is legitimate.
But, in part precisely because the work is so laborious, it contains the opportunity to accomplish something useful. The idea that digital technology could be used to improve higher education has been a major point of debate for at least a decade — and it’s barely gone anywhere. The pandemic is painful on many levels, but in this case, it’s forcing a huge portion of faculty members in the US to make the large upfront costs of mastering the technology to create something that will have enduring value for years to come.
The pandemic, says Kevin Carey, the director of the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation, is hastening what he thinks is the long-term trend: “the integration of technology into the planning, design, and implementation of college in a way that’s so taken for granted and ingrained that the distinction between in-person and online really starts to collapse altogether.”
Recorded lectures with digital distribution have big benefits
You don’t need to doubt the value of in-person instruction to see that the digital distribution of recorded lectures has some real value.
Unlike a live lecture, a recorded one has a shelf life. It might take two-and-a-half hours to record one hour’s worth of lecture, but once it’s done, a professor could use that hour for four or five years straight. For the 2020-21 academic year, professors are scrambling to make these teaching materials as they also prepare for remote discussion sessions and office hours. But by the next school year, when students are hopefully back on campus, the lectures will still exist and can be used at zero time cost to the faculty. While those digital lectures might not be as good as live lectures, professors will not have to spend time creating them and can devote their freed-up time to discussions, office hours, and other forms of high-value engagement.
Digital lectures have a lot of the same good qualities as books. They take a long time to create, but when done well they have enduring value.
Digital lectures also have logistical benefits from the student’s standpoint. With asynchronous delivery, you never miss out on a class simply because it happens at the same time as another class. Seven years ago, then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, making the case for investing in classroom technology, argued that with “streaming video, students — particularly those who are geographically isolated or who are taking advanced courses with limited enrollment — can connect with experts who might be thousands of miles away and can use nearly limitless instructional resources.”
That proved difficult in practice not just because America has been too slow to deliver high-quality internet service to rural and low-income communities, but because the content wasn’t there to use.
Even in more conventional academic settings, if you’re working on a paper and want to refer back to something you remember the professor saying, you don’t need to rely exclusively on your notes — you can actually watch the digital recording again.
Digital lectures have a lot of the same good qualities as books. They take a long time to create, but when done well they have enduring value. Over time, like books, they can generate significant scale effects.
Lectures will be the new textbooks
There are hundreds if not thousands of introductory microeconomics courses taught all across the United States in any given academic year. But while almost all of them use a textbook, they don’t use hundreds of microeconomics textbooks. Instead, the vast majority of the courses cluster around a relatively small number of popular textbooks, each of which is the result of much more time and effort than any one school would be capable of mounting.
That’s in part a simple question of efficiency. But it’s also the democratizing nature of something easily scalable, like text.
Ben Miller, the vice president for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, notes that “good online teaching takes extensive time to develop” and cautions that in most cases that’s not really what’s happening this semester. Faculty members are swamped with work, dealing with inconsistent guidance from administrators, and essentially muddling through. But they’re also running many simultaneous experiments in developing online coursework, and even if a small number of them prove to be good, they could scale up in powerful ways.
This what recording lectures looks like: 1 lecture takes about 2.5 hours to prepare. Ppt are already created, but I type up a script, print it, record each slide, save it as an MP4 and then upload to YouTube & imbed in Canvas. Then I create canvas questions too @AcademicChatter pic.twitter.com/33W2NYsnuC — Aquatic Research Laboratory (@KResearchLab) August 26, 2020
The basic exclusionary logic of the current higher education system is that even in a state with a well-regarded public university system, only a small (and typically relatively privileged) subset of any year’s graduating high school seniors are deemed worthy of admission to the flagship campus. While not everyone will be invited to study at Austin, Madison, or Ann Arbor and learn from the professors there, everyone has access to more or less the same textbooks.
And for popular, widely taught courses, video lectures from star professors could become similar. Back in June, Cornell economist Robert Frank asked us to imagine not the video lectures of today but those of tomorrow where you might get “an online course delivered by one of the world’s most knowledgeable and charismatic instructors, supported by Pixar-class animators, award-winning documentary filmmakers and a team of in-person graduate teaching assistants.”
The most selective schools could still offer unique advantages in terms of their in-person discussion seminars, providing students access to the best peer groups and other factors. And in the near future, it should be possible, through licensing or other schemes, for everyone to benefit from the best lecturers in the world.
Faculty, meanwhile, could have more time for their research or for real teaching and mentoring activities rather than duplicative lecturing.
The pandemic is, realistically, a top-to-bottom disaster for education at all levels with technology serving as a none-too-adequate Band-Aid for a dire public health situation. But just as the exigencies of World War II created technologies (radar, jet planes, rockets, synthetic rubber) that transformed civilian life once the disaster had abated, the awkward shifts forced by the pandemic could have some long-term payoff for the arduous work done this semester — creating the circumstances for more flexible and more broadly accessible higher education in years to come.