Posthumanism and Human Rights Psychology – Opportunities for Advancing Rights for Nonhumans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The planet’s ecological and environmental crisis is a pressing global challenge. We argue that the dual objectives of human rights and well-being for humans and rights for nonhumans involving prioritizing the natural ecological space, need not be seen as separate goals. Both can be achieved by building on a rights-based approach informed by the tradition of human rights. Rights for nonhumans are an extension of, and not a displacement for, the significant strides made in human rights since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Humans and nonhumans alike comprise a single ecosystem. However, advancing rights for nonhumans requires rethinking the humanist heritage that gave rise to both psychology and the modern human rights project. Building on our previous research, this paper engages psychological science with contemporary posthuman trends concerning rights for nonhumans, including nonsentient beings such as rivers, streams, and other natural entities. We explore alternative ways to consider the well-winnowed humanist concept of agency in psychological science within a posthuman cultural context and examine measurements of people’s sense of identity relative to the natural world. We propose innovative research pathways for psychological scientists to contribute meaningfully to rights for nonhumans and support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) related to planetary health and well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".