Climate change is causing extensive and unprecedented impacts on individuals, societies, and ecosystems. Transformational efforts are increasingly advocated to overcome limits to climate change adaptation, but they can entail difficult and potentially disruptive decisions that depend on the goals that individuals and societies decide to pursue, and thus on the values they wish to prioritise, reconfigure or leave behind in response to radical changes. The call for transformational adaptation revives the impetus for placing values centre stage but also poses key challenges for adaptation research and practice. This perspective outlines three challenges for taking values seriously: understanding what values are, by acknowledging both their descriptive and normative dimensions; accounting for the multiplicity of value holders across space and time; and designing processes through which value conflicts are made explicit and can be legitimately resolved. We outline how ethics can help in determining the relation between what people find valuable and normatively well-grounded values; propose ‘value mapping’ exercises to elicit the values of actors involved in the adaptation process; and stress the potential of deliberative approaches in supporting efforts for more transformative adaptation. These challenges are exemplified through planned relocation, a radical and potentially transformative adaptation response. This paper outlines the distinction between descriptive and normative conceptions of values, a distinction often overlooked in environmental social sciences, and demonstrates its significance for addressing the multiplicity of values and conflicts in transformational adaptation. Rather than prescribing a definitive method for closing the gap between these descriptive and normative conceptions on values, it traces an initial pathway for integrating empirical and ethical perspectives and calls for renewed collaborations across the social sciences and humanities to advance values-based adaptation research and practice.

We endorse policymakers’ efforts to address the negative consequences of the attention economy’s technology but add that these approaches are often limited in their criticism of the systemic context of human attention. Starting from Buddhist philosophy, we advocate a broader approach: an ‘ecology of attending’ that centers on conceptualizing, designing, and using attention (1) in an embedded way and (2) focused on the alleviating of suffering. With ‘embedded’ we mean that attention is not a neutral, isolated mechanism but a meaning-engendering part of an ‘ecology’ of bodily, sociotechnical and moral frameworks. With ‘focused on the alleviation of suffering’ we mean that we explicitly move away from the (often implicit) conception of attention as a tool for gratifying desires. We analyze existing inquiries in these directions and urge them to be intensified and integrated. As to the design and function of our technological environment, we propose three questions for further research: How can technology help to acknowledge us as ‘ecological’ beings, rather than as self-sufficient individuals? How can technology help to raise awareness of our moral framework? And how can technology increase the conditions for ‘attending’ to the alleviation of suffering, by substituting our covert self-driven moral framework with an ecologically attending one? We believe in the urgency of transforming the inhumane attention economy sociotechnical system into a humane ecology of attending, and in our ability to contribute to it.

The original article includes few corrections. They are as follows: The affiliation of the authors was published as: Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences (IE&IS), Philosophy&Ethics Capacity Group, TU/e, Eindhoven, NL, Netherlands. It must be published as: Matthew J, Dennis 1. Department of Industrial Engineering&Innovation Sciences (IE&IS), Philosophy&Ethics Capacity Group, TU/e, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Evgeni Aizenberg 2, 3 Department of Intelligent Systems, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands AiTech Interdisciplinary Research Program on Meaningful Human Control over AI, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands In original article, Footnotes 1 and 2 must be switched. It must be published as: Footnote 1: ModernHire claims a 70% reduction in interview-tohire ratio (2021). HireVue claims a 90% decrease from initial application to hire (2021). To get an idea of what this amounts to in practice, see Forbes’ interview of Leena Nair, Unilever’s chief of HR. Nair claims that approximately “70,000 person-hours of interviewing and assessing candidates had been cut, thanks to their automated screening system” (Forbes 2018). Footnote 2: Pymetrics urges employers not to “judge a job seeker by their resume alone.” Instead, the company proposes that their “objective behavioural data that measures a job seeker’s true potential” are better predictors of future productivity rather than “focusing on backward-looking resumes orself-reported questionnaires” The following reference must be deleted. Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E., and Sutherland, W. (2021). Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data and Society, 8(2), 20539517211020332. https://doi. org/10.1177/20539517211020332 The original article has been corrected.