Erik Persson

Erik Persson

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

57Years (1970-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 July 2016 in Science of The Total Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EPErik Persson
Erik Persson

26 September 2013 in Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Kristina BlennowKristina Blennow
Kristina Blennow
JPJohannes Persson
Johannes Persson
AWAnnika Wallin
Annika Wallin
NVNiklas Vareman
Niklas Vareman
EPErik Persson
Erik Persson
Uncertainty, insufficient information or information of poor quality, limited cognitive capacity and time, along with value conflicts and ethical considerations, are all aspects that make risk management and risk communication difficult. This paper provides a review of different risk concepts and describes how these influence risk management, communication and planning in relation to forest ecosystem services. Based on the review and results of empirical studies, we suggest that personal assessment of risk is decisive in the management of forest ecosystem services. The results are used together with a review of different principles of the distribution of risk to propose an approach to risk communication that is effective as well as ethically sound. Knowledge of heuristics and mutual information on both beliefs and desires are important in the proposed risk communication approach. Such knowledge provides an opportunity for relevant information exchange, so that gaps in personal knowledge maps can be filled in and effective risk communication can be promoted.

1 August 2014 in Biomass and Bioenergy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Kristina BlennowKristina Blennow
Kristina Blennow
EPErik Persson
Erik Persson
MLMarcus Lindner
Marcus Lindner
SFSónia Pacheco Faias
Sónia Pacheco Faias
MHMarc Hanewinkel
Marc Hanewinkel

26 May 2015
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
EPErik Persson
Erik Persson

1 October 2012 in Astrobiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EPErik Persson
Erik Persson
If we eventually discover extraterrestrial life, do we have any moral obligations for how to treat the life-forms we find; does it matter whether they are intelligent, sentient, or just microbial—and does it matter that they are extraterrestrial? In this paper, I examine these questions by looking at two of the basic questions in moral philosophy: What does it take to be a moral object? and What has value of what kind? I will start with the first of these questions by looking at the most important attempts to answer this question on our own planet and by asking whether and how they could be applied to extraterrestrial life. The results range from a very strong protection of all extraterrestrial life and all extraterrestrial environments, whether inhabited or not, to total exclusion of extraterrestrial life. Subsequently, I also examine whether extraterrestrial life that lacks moral status can have value to human or alien life with moral status, and if that could generate any obligations for how to treat extraterrestrial life. Based on this analysis, I conclude that extraterrestrial life-forms can have both instrumental value and end value to moral objects, which has strong implications for how to treat them. Key Words: Extraterrestrial ethics—Moral status—Anthropocentrism—Sentientism—Biocentrism—Ecocentrism—Instrumental value—End value. Astrobiology 12, 976–984.

13 June 2022 in AI & SOCIETY
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MHMaria Hedlund
Maria Hedlund
EPErik Persson
Erik Persson
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the responsibility of AI experts for guiding the development of AI in a desirable direction. More specifically, the aim is to answer the following research question: To what extent are AI experts responsible in a forward-looking way for effects of AI technology that go beyond the immediate concerns of the programmer or designer? AI experts, in this paper conceptualised as experts regarding the technological aspects of AI, have knowledge and control of AI technology that non-experts do not have. Drawing on responsibility theory, theories of the policy process, and critical algorithm studies, we discuss to what extent this capacity, and the positions that these experts have to influence the AI development, make AI experts responsible in a forward-looking sense for consequences of the use of AI technology. We conclude that, as a professional collective, AI experts, to some extent, are responsible in a forward-looking sense for consequences of use of AI technology that they could foresee, but with the risk of increased influence of AI experts at the expense of other actors. It is crucial that a diversity of actors is included in democratic processes on the future development of AI, but for this to be meaningful, AI experts need to take responsibility for how the AI technology they develop affects public deliberation.