Social Work Consent Form Template: Fill & Download for Free

If the standards are prosperity, with wide distribution, and freedom (political freedom, civil rights, tolerance) and stability, there is no doubt that the most effective political ideology can be found in Northern Europe, where capitalism and socialism are balanced in a hybrid system, which, ironically but inevitably, has no ideology but is rather a kind of mosaic of institutions, some private, some public and which conforms to no known“pure” ideology.This is because all ideas, taken to the extreme become absurd, a kind of intellectual gargoyle, and this reality points to the limits of ideology as a blueprint for social success and balance.This system is supported less by ideas driven to their extremes than by best practices, by experience, and the lessons of the past. It is usually called social democracy, supported by democratic socialists but within a framework of capitalism, regulated and guided to the benefit of society as a whole, to the common good.Rousseau defined the common good in his classic The Social Contract as the sum of all desires and needs, minus all those which benefit only a part of society. Examples of the common good then would be peace, clean air and water, tolerance, and education, all of which are of value to all.The social democracies, as in the Nordic countries, work without a rigid ideology but rather a set of shared (common) values: that government is established for the common good, that labor should have a voice in the economy, that wealth and benefits should be distributed so that none are left to suffer uncared for. So at the root of this hybrid “ideology” is a shared sense of concern for each other, less altruism than the realization that “we are all in the same boat” and that harms one threatens all. The template for this vision of society is the commune=ity.This sense of community is the key to the success of social democracy, a sense that capitalism unbridled rips apart and which socialism, as a collective enterprise, might ossify into a conformity which crushes innovation, which is a hallmark of capitalism (tho not always for the good….consider nuclear weapons).Ideology, taken to its extremes, leads to, atrocities. Intense nationalism leads to war, pure capitalism leads to a world of immense wealth for a tiny elite and mass poverty for billions: today, globalization has led to a world where 5 billionaires, all of whom gained their wealth by exploiting taxpayer-funded technologies and gaming the system (ie eliminating competition) have more wealth than 3.5 billion people, one billion of whom live in abject misery on $1 a day or less and millions die of malnutrition. This is the absurd obscenity of “pure” capitalism.Social democracy, which can understood best not by studying its formal ideology, but by observing the institutions and their underlying assumptions and values, in existing, successful nations (which also co-operate as part of the greater EU)…for social democracy is less a political theory than a successful experiment in combining the best features of capitalism (it’s dynamic quality) within a broad social framework of the nation as a large family with all members valued and each sharing in the labor and fruits of their collective effort.The extreme strain of the individualism which underlies capitalism and of collectivism, which underlies socialism, meet somewhere in the middle where rigid ideology dissolves into mutual agreement to tolerate compromises instead of fighting over ideas.Social democracy, as the most successful model of human society we can find, is based on a social contract which enacts Rousseau’s concept of the common good based on compromise in its original meaning: promising each other together to abide by rules which benefit all.In conclusion, I would like to suggest that ideology is a recipe for disaster, as it posits a set of ideas that compete with others, often ending in war. By contrast, social democracy, as we see it enacted in nations like Finland (the happiest society on earth), Sweden, Germany, and other European nations (but also in nations like Canada, Japan, and Australia) is less an ideology that an agreement to stop fighting over ideas and live by a social contract, the basis of which is a set of institutions and rules which work for that which is of benefit to all: the common good, which, in essence, is the function of legitimate government, according to the principles of democracy and the equality an inalienable rights on which it is founded.Democracy itself is less an ideology than a deep culture which incorporates basic rights, consent of the governed, an independent judiciary, a free and diverse press, an informed and engaged citizenry, an a culture of tolerance for differing ideas, which in itself tends to soften the hard and threatening edges of a rigid ideology which leads to purges and wars and destroys the social contract, on which all stable societies rely for cohesion.The social, in social democracy, refers to the emphasis on policies and institutions which go beyond personal or special interests and emphasizes what is good for all, such as clean air, safety, etc. Democracy, in the deep sense, is less an ideology than a strategy, by promoting consent of the governed among equals, to avoid rulers who, lacking the tailwind of popular support, are compelled to resort to lies, propaganda, threats, force, and if all else fails, torture and violence to overcome the resistance of the governed. So social democracy is a hybrid of the innovative dynamics of capitalism, combined with the emphasis on the common good, sustained by a strategy that ensures harmony by avoiding rulers compelled to use deception and force to rule over unwilling subjects.

I have read through many of the answers here, and I agree with a lot of them. However, I think that many of the disturbing questions raised so far are already addressed somewhere in Star Trek.Here is a specific one which I feel was never seriously addressed.Holodecks and Personal LibertyFor those not in the know— Holodecks are interactive 3D grids capable of generating physical holographic images of any kind. More than just virtual reality — you can touch and feel the images.We see them used for everything from simple combat training:to full on immersive/interactive stories:…. but the technology of the holodeck raises some very serious ethical questions about personal liberties and freedom of expression.Consider this a warning because we are about to go down a very dark rabbit hole.The ethical quandary comes from the fact that the Holodeck is capable of creating photorealistic representations of REAL CONTEMPORANEOUS PEOPLE, not just a model of a fictitious character.We see this fairly early on in TNG in the season 3 episode Hollow Pursuits where Reginald Barclay creates holodeck fantasies of his shipmates to help himself deal with his extreme social anxiety. Here he is having a saber fight with ‘Captain Picard’…..We see it several other times throughout all the TNG era series. In the episode Ship in a Bottle we see the malevolent Moriarity character create a fictional version of the Enterprise-D so that he may manipulate Captain Picard into giving him his command codes:Talk about a security concern, am I right?But the rabbit hole doesn’t end there. Here is Barclay AGAIN over a decade later having a flight of fantasy with representations of Voyager’s crew from the episode Pathfinder:…. to be clear these are people he has never met before. All he really knows about them is their service records and some scant biographical information. In fact at this point no one on Voyager knows Reg Barclay even exists! But Reginald Barclay isn’t the only culprit here.Here is Seven of Nine using a holographic representation of her commanding officer to explore and examine romance in the episode Human Error…. that is pretty disturbing. Seven seems to know this is wrong, evidenced by the fact that she is keeping the Chakotay hologram a secret from everyone but The Doctor. I think if the genders were reversed there would be widespread outrage, even scandal over the issue.Now, for those of you who are two steps ahead of me we are about to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes. The real clincher comes somewhere in DS9…..…. where we learn that Quark actually rents out his holosuites for the purposes of sex. That’s right, having sex with a hologram is 100% canon in Star Trek and no one seems to bat an eye at the idea.I’ll repeat Holographic Brothels.It is an idea which is simultaneously both exciting and repulsive, who among us wouldn’t jump at the idea of having a sexual fantasy with our favorite celebrity? I’m sure the Holopimps of the 24th century could book entire brothels worth of the 24th century equivalents of Chris Hemsworth or Emma Watson.… but once you start to think about the practicality of it, the darkness sets in. What if it wasn’t a celebrity? What if it was your sister? Or your spouse? Or the waitress from down the street? Or an ex-lover? Or even an unrequited love who has rejected you?There is actually an episode where Quark spends the entire episode trying to get a scan of Kira so he can turn her into a digital prostitute for a client who is attracted to her.…. I’m going to repeat that. Quark wants to use Kira’s image against her will to create a sexual plaything for a random alien!What is worse is that this is treated like a comical side plot as part of another episode — instead of being outraged the crew of DS9 are like:Oh Well! That’s just Quark being Quark!Surely some sort of law has been broken — right?This issue raises serious and fundamental questions about the ownership of one’s likeness. From a legal and ethical standpoint one has to question if it should be possible to create a hyper-realistic representation of another human without their consent or even against their will. How would you feel if someone turned your image into a computer generated ‘fuck-buddy’ — pretty violated I suppose?The ethical question is whether or not you have the inalienable right to protect your likeness and how far that right extends. A lot of you will probably say ‘Of course you do, absolutely and unequivocally’ — but on the flip side of this argument is Freedom of Speech and Freedom of expression.I am sure there are plenty of legitimate reasons a ‘Holonovelist’ would need to use the representation of a real person for artistic or social commentary. If you make it illegal to use someone else’s likeness, you infringe on that artist’s ability to express themselves and you restrict the freedom of expression for everyone. This is also in Star Trek cannon — not once but twice:In the episode Worst Case Scenario Tuvok creates a Holographic representation of Voyager’s crew to help train his security officers on how to deal with the possible threat of a mutiny. Sounds like a pretty valid reason to me!Tuvok wisely restricts access to this program because he fears it might be incendiary. That episode devolves into a mindless action film instead of asking the ‘big questions’In the episode Author Author The Doctor decides to flex his creative talents by writing a fictionalized account of his adventures in the Delta Quadrant using slightly modified versions of Voyager’s crew as a template.The rest of this episode is dedicated to The Doctor’s right, as an artist, to create — but it doesn’t really deal with the ethics of using his crewmates in the work of fiction (though a few passing comments are indeed made).For all the interesting social questions Star Trek has raised over the years, I cannot think of an episode which directly addresses this particular issue.This issue is particularly relevant today. Perhaps in the news or social media you have seen or heard of the term DEEPFAKES? It is a technology which allows a savvy computer user to take a video and swap the face of one person out with another. Here is an example where someone swapped Jack Nicholson’s face in The Shining (1980) with Jim Carrey’s Face:Here is a funny one where Nick Offerman’s face replaces everyone in Full House — now that is a reboot series I can get behind!….. but of course since the internet exists, somebody is using the technology for pornography. In fact more people are using the technology for pornography than anything else — you can find entire websites where someone has taken the face of their favorite actress and put it into a porno video. There are thousands of these videos out there with varying degrees of success.This whole thing seems eerily similar to our friend Quark and his attempt to be a Holographic Pimp.… and we have to ask ourselves the same questions about technology, personal liberties and the right to free expression.These are big issues AND they are inflammatory — so inflammatory that Reddit actually banned the r/deepfakes thread a couple of years ago. Do know how bad something has to be to get banned from Reddit? Reddit — the racist dumpsterfire of the internet? Pretty freaking bad.The real issue for Reddit (at the time) was that some users were taking image sets of Maisie Williams from Game of Thrones to create hyper-realistic pornography of her face on an adult’s body. The problem being that, at the time, they were using images from before she turned 18.Pandora’s Box has been officially opened.What is this? Is it child pornography or something else? We created laws against child pornography to protect children against being raped and traumatized — but that hasn’t happened here since a child’s face is being placed on an adult’s body.One can make the argument that Ms. Williams will suffer a social trauma, and that is an argument I can totally get behind, but what is interesting about DEEPFAKES is that the technology sometimes doesn’t quite get it right. The end result being some weird sort of hybrid which doesn’t look like either the original subject nor the celebrity they are trying to sexualize. It ends up as a hybrid which (in theory) offends neither’s personal liberties — whose liberties are to be protected in this instance?It hasn’t happened yet, but mark my words that at some point in the near future some teenage girl is going to commit suicide not because her boyfriend released a sextape of the two of them — but because somebody created a Deepfake porn video of her and shared it all over the school.The problem we have today is that this technology is out there — and like 3D printed guns — the genie is NOT going back into the bottle.Like I said these are huge issues.I am an artist and a big part of my practice deals with how technologies like Deepfakes (or the hypothetical Holodeck) effect our society at large. I have personally been working around this “Deepfakes idea” for 2 or 3 years now through essays and works — and I am no closer to answering my questions than I was when I started my journey. If anything I have MORE questions.Viscerally I think it is abhorrent to put any actresses face on a pornographic body it should be outlawed — but deep down I really want to see that video of Nick Offerman.Where is the line drawn? and who decides where that line is to be drawn? Do I really want some bureaucrat in Washington watching some CNN report and deciding what I can and cannot do with this technology? Do I want my artistic rights to be trampled on because some kid made a porn video of his crush?Pornography aside there are dozens of other questions involving jurisprudence, journalistic integrity and the general idea that videos represent truth to the masses.Like the Holodeck, ‘Deepfakes’ technology is a scary and powerful tool for artists of all stripes to use, but ultimately it is just a tool — it is the users who decide how to implement it.I don’t have the answers here, I wish I did. Perhaps you do?

This is a very intriguing question. You describe the context of your question in the comment above, and it’s something that marketers have aspired to since the rise of digital technology:…the utopian model of 1:1 relationship-based marketing.I agree that the differences between B2B and B2C marketing are growing narrower as that model comes closer and closer to reality.But there are still a few key differences that will remain. Consider these points:So close, and still so far. Sure, we have marketing automation, and AI applications/functions, and social media, and big data — but 1:1 marketing is not yet here. For now, the tech needed for that ratio is simply not available; and so the differences between B2B and B2C marketing definitely still matter. B2B marketers are able to achieve something close to 1:1 marketing through strategies such as Account-Based Marketing, but B2C marketers must deal with a far larger volume of customer data, which they may not have the tools or budget to process and properly leverage.Legal considerations. And what of consumers’ valid concerns about privacy? Prospective B2B clients are potentially looking to build a long-term relationship, and are more open and accepting of how the B2B company will do research and capture data about them. In contrast, individual consumers may balk at the idea of being tracked without their consent. They may not like being blasted with ads, even if they are targeted, or receiving unsolicited emails. There are stricter guidelines in Europe than in the US on the gathering, use, and protection of consumer data, but that may change.Scale and cost. Even if that 1:1 dream comes to pass, and marketing technology takes a leap forward, it may not be something the average B2C company can achieve. The cost not only of handling customer data, but of churning out marketing materials on a 1:1 scale, could be prohibitive. Automation is a possible alternative, but such software would also be expensive, and necessarily limited in the complexity of its interactions with consumers. Automated content works with templates and cues, a far cry from from artificial intelligence.As for AI — for example, chatbots conversing intelligently with individual consumers — the marketing applications of AI are being developed, and they show great promise. Indeed, at Tenfold, we’ve found that AI has useful functions that increase the effectiveness of our customer-facing teams. But the cost and scale of marketing efforts for 1:1 campaigns is difficult to imagine, because AI is still such a nascent technology.If you’re interested in reading more about these subjects, check out our blog post on the latest inbound marketing trends.Hope this helps!