<h2>High Times</h2>
In the United States, marijuana used to have a bad reputation.
Now, more than <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/243908/two-three-americans-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">two out of every three people</a> in the United States support legalizing cannabis, and state <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/legal-marijuana-states-2018-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">laws</a> are reflecting that shift in opinion. Medical marijuana is currently legal in 33 states plus Washington, D.C., and in 10 of those states and the nation&#8217;s capital, adults over the age of 21 can legally buy marijuana for recreational use.
Government officials are even <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/senate-legalize-marijuana-nationwide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">starting to push</a> for nation-wide cannabis legalization — and not just because they think more people should be getting high.
<h2>Legalize It</h2>
Here are seven ways experts predict cannabis legalization will lead to a better future:
1. Cannabis is already <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/report-marijuana-growing-jobs-sector-us" target="_blank" rel="noopener">creating jobs</a> more quickly than any other industry — and the number of new jobs is expected to keep increasing as more places legalize marijuana.
2. Scientists believe <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/canada-legalized-cannabis-science" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalization</a> could make it easier for them to develop cannabis-based medical treatments. One such medication is already <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/cannabis-derived-drug-approved" target="_blank" rel="noopener">helping children</a> cope with a rare, previously untreatable form of seizure-causing epilepsy, and early studies show the plant&#8217;s potential to treat everything from <a href="https://futurism.com/5-story-research-shows-that-cannabis-can-restore-memory-and-could-reverse-the-ageing-process" target="_blank" rel="noopener">brain aging</a> to <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/cbd-psychosis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">psychosis</a>.
3. Legalization gives governments the opportunity to <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/would-legalizing-pot-be-good-for-environment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">regulate cannabis cultivation</a>, thereby ensuring farmers aren&#8217;t allowed to damage the environment while growing their crops.
4. It also decreases the strain on the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/drug-law-reform/marijuana-law-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">justice system</a>, freeing up police — and billions of dollars in state money — to fight other criminal activity.
5. Experts are hopeful cannabis could help <a href="https://futurism.com/states-approving-cannabis-fight-opioid-addiction" target="_blank" rel="noopener">end the opioid crisis</a> by easing the symptoms of withdrawal.
6. The taxes from cannabis sales could go toward improving any number of societal institutions. Oregon, where recreational marijuana is legal, <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/2017/10/oregon_pays_out_85_million_in_1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recently dedicated millions</a> in cannabis taxes to its schools and public health services.
7. By driving down cannabis costs, legalization also <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/04/legal-marijuana-2018-canada-changing-how-weed-grown-and-cost/1776150002/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">drives cartels and black-market dealers out of business</a> — taking <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/medical-marijuana-legalisation-cannabis-us-states-violent-crime-drop-numbers-study-california-new-a8160311.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">violent activity</a> along with them.
More on cannabis: <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/senate-legalize-marijuana-nationwide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Senate Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Nationwide</a>

Want to improve society? Legalize marijuana.

Seven ways cannabis legalization will make the future better

Helpful Hemp

Cannabis legalization is picking up steam across the nation. Here are seven ways the future stands to benefit from ending the war on weed.

Seven Ways Cannabis Legalization Will Make the Future Better

Everything from the environment to the economy benefits from legal weed.

<h2>Interplanetary Heritage</h2>
Right now, there&#8217;s no legal framework preventing people from destroying or selling culturally-important landmarks in space.
For instance, as space travel becomes more common, an opportunistic someone could find a way to steal and auction off the first bootprints left on the moon by Neil Armstrong, warns University of Mississippi Air and Space Law professor Michelle Hanlon in an essay <a href="https://theconversation.com/protecting-human-heritage-on-the-moon-dont-let-one-small-step-become-one-giant-mistake-111020">published Friday in The Conversation</a>.
<h2>Earthly Precedent</h2>
Hanlon cites damage to landmarks like the Pyramids of Gaza or Terracotta Army by tourists who break off pieces to take home as evidence that people can&#8217;t be trusted to preserve landmarks of their own volition.
&#8220;There is no law against running over the first bootprints imprinted on the moon,&#8221; Hanlon wrote. &#8220;Or erasing them. Or carving them out of the moon’s regolith and selling them to the highest bidder.&#8221;
<h2>Rising Chorus</h2>
Places like Stonehenge and ancient cave paintings are protected as part of the U.N.&#8217;s <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list">World Heritage List</a>. If landmarks in space are to survive as more nations and companies develop the capacity to leave the planet, Hanlon believes that leaders need to be proactive and protect those landmarks before anything goes wrong.
Hanlon is just one of many to recently call for more comprehensive or updated space laws. Right now, the <a href="https://futurism.com/universities-space-law">various laws and treaties</a> that pertain to outer space are a bit of a mess. Hopefully, before trips to the moon become commonplace, someone can sort them out.
READ MORE: <a href="https://theconversation.com/protecting-human-heritage-on-the-moon-dont-let-one-small-step-become-one-giant-mistake-111020">Protecting human heritage on the moon: Don’t let ‘one small step’ become one giant mistake</a> [The Conversation]
More on space law: <a href="https://futurism.com/four-legal-challenges-to-resolve-before-settling-on-mars">Four Legal Challenges to Resolve Before Settling on Mars</a>

Right now, there's no legal framework preventing people from destroying or selling culturally-important landmarks in space.

Lawyer: People could try to sell the Apollo Moon footprints

Space Tourism

Air and Space Law professor Michelle Hanlon argues that if we don't draft new laws, the destruction of landmarks that happens on Earth will repeat in space.

Lawyer: People Could Try to Sell the Apollo Moon Footprints

"There is no law against running over the first bootprints imprinted on the moon."

<h2>Making Moves</h2>
Remember that cryptocurrency exchange that said it lost $196 million of its customers&#8217; money <a href="https://futurism.com/crypto-exchange-loses-millions-encrypted-wallet">when CEO Gerald Cotten died</a> — prompting conspiracy theories Cotten <a href="https://futurism.com/growing-suspicion-crypto-ceo-faked-death">faked his own death</a>?
Well, those 115,000 customers just lawyered up.
<h2>Ticking Clock</h2>
Michael Wood, a justice on Nova Scotia&#8217;s Supreme Court, <a href="http://www.courts.ns.ca/Decisions_Of_Courts/documents/2019nssc65.pdf">issued a ruling</a> Tuesday that QuadrigaCX customers would be represented by two law firms, Miller Thomson as well as Cox &amp; Palmer, in the event of a class-action lawsuit, <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/judge-appoints-law-firms-to-represent-quadrigacx-customers">according to CoinDesk</a>.
So far, no one has filed suit against QuadrigaCX — though the users&#8217; new lawyers can start preparing one, according to CoinDesk. On Feb. 5, the courts <a href="https://futurism.com/growing-suspicion-crypto-ceo-faked-death">approved a 30-day stay</a> at the company&#8217;s request. That leaves QuadrigaCX with about two more weeks to settle the matter and come up with $196 million on its own before anyone can sue.
<h2>Next Steps</h2>
Once the stay expires on March 7, the crypto exchange may try to have it extended. But that appeal would come before Judge Wood.
Given his move to prepare QuadrigaCX customers for a potential lawsuit, Wood may decide that QuadrigaCX was given enough time and open up the floor to any lawsuits.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/judge-appoints-law-firms-to-represent-quadrigacx-customers">Judge Appoints Law Firms to Represent QuadrigaCX Customers</a> [CoinDesk]
More on QuadrigaCX: <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/quadrigafx-details-ceo-death">Indian Hospital Fires Back at Rumors That Crypto CEO Faked Death</a>

QuadrigaCX still has time on its stay, but now its customers are equipped for a class-action suit.

Users of crypto site where dead CEO lost $196M preparing to sue

Drawing Straws

QuadrigaCX has about two weeks left to its stay to raise the money it owes before anyone can sue, but a judge just appointed law firms to its customers.

Users of Crypto Site Where Dead CEO Lost $196M Are Preparing Suit

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court appointed law firms Miller Thomson and Cox & Palmer.

<h2>Space Law</h2>
When it comes to space, the law is <a href="https://futurism.com/four-legal-challenges-to-resolve-before-settling-on-mars">a jumbled mess</a>. Sure, there are international agreements like the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but for the most part there&#8217;s no single, unifying document that lays out how countries and private companies are allowed to operate off-world.
That&#8217;s why a group of universities <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-space/2019/02/04/2-japanese-space-companies-growing-us-operations-385281">are working on</a> what they call The Woomera Manual, a massive project that plans to gather, clarify, and streamline all existing laws that pertain to space exploration, development, and militarization.
<h2>Making the Dream Work</h2>
The team, comprised of researchers from the University of Adelaide, the University of New South Wales in Canberra, Exeter University, and the University of Nebraska College of Law, has already started work. Its first U.S. meeting, which will happen from February 24 through the end of the month in Lincoln, Nebraska, is intended to broaden and diversify the perspectives and ideas that inform the finished product, which is expected to be published in 2020, <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-space/2019/02/04/2-japanese-space-companies-growing-us-operations-385281">according to Politico</a>.
Jack Beard, a professor in the University of Nebraska College of Law’s Space, Cyber and Telecommunications Law Program, told Politico that the Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Operations &#8220;will become the definitive document on military and security law as it applies to space.&#8221;
<h2>De-Cluttering</h2>
The Woomera Manual won&#8217;t actually lay out any new guidelines. Instead it will organize and present the laws that are already on the books so that politicians, industry leaders, and others can make better informed decisions regarding activity in space.
Given the fact that the Outer Space Treaty, which banned military actions in outer space, has all but been tossed aside, it&#8217;s unclear how much they&#8217;ll actually listen.
READ MORE: <a href="https://law.adelaide.edu.au/woomera/home">The Woomera Manual</a> [University of Adelaide Newsroom]
More on space policy: <a href="https://futurism.com/space-force-arms-race">Creating a Space Force Could Trigger an Off-World Arms Race</a>

Researchers hope it'll "become the definitive document on military and security law as it applies to space."

Four universities are trying to figure out space law

Space Law

A team of four universities is working on the comprehensive guide to all existing space law, a field they argue is currently too jumbled to make sense of.

These Four Universities Are Trying to Figure Out Space Law

They won't draft any new legislation, but will assemble every rule pertaining to space that's out there.

<h2>LawBot</h2>
Automation is coming after even the most highly-trained workers.
This time, the <a href="https://futurism.com/ai-contracts-lawyers-lawgeex">targets are legal professionals</a>: a new startup called Ironclad has raised millions of dollars to automate the work of law firms. The company says its technology will do the tedious paperwork that keeps lawyers busy on contracts and other deals, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/30/ironclad-raises-24-million-in-funding-round-led-by-sequoia.html">according to CNBC</a> — a mission which, if it succeeds, could send shockwaves through the staid world of legal practice.
<h2>Time-Saver</h2>
According to Ironclad&#8217;s founders, the idea is to give lawyers and other professionals the tools to automate their own jobs, not to actually replace the humans actually doing the work.
&#8220;Wouldn&#8217;t it be great if you could have associates who could code and automate their own jobs and would make the firm more efficient?&#8221; CEO Jason Boehmig asked CNBC, paraphrasing his original elevator pitch back when he was first starting Ironclad in 2012.
But then again, what startup actually admits that its technology will put people out of work?
<h2>Captcha-Proof</h2>
Ironclad says its clients already include Dropbox and L&#8217;Oreal.
Startups like Ironclad demonstrate the early stages of software that&#8217;s able to <a href="https://futurism.com/artificially-intelligent-lawyer-ross-hired-first-official-law-firm">take on ever-complex and specialized tasks</a> — and more people may find themselves increasingly replaceable as it develops.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/30/ironclad-raises-24-million-in-funding-round-led-by-sequoia.html">This start-up was founded by a lawyer who wanted to automate the legal profession</a> [CNBC]
More on law firms: <a href="https://futurism.com/an-ai-law-firm-wants-to-automate-the-entire-legal-world">An AI Law Firm Wants to ‘Automate the Entire Legal World’</a>

But its tech can't replace human lawyers just yet.

This startup wants to automate law firms

AI Legalization

Tech startup Ironclad wants to help law firms automate legal work. It's a vision of a future in which automation threatens increasingly complex jobs.

This Startup Is Trying to Automate Law Firms

Ironclad streamlines some of the paperwork that bogs down legal professionals.

Today, Google was legally required to hide someone from an online search. A British judge ordered the company to remove search results that referenced a man’s criminal conviction from ten years ago.
The legal basis for this ruling? The Right to be Forgotten, which allows people to request that outdated and irrelevant information about them be taken down. It&#8217;s explicitly <a href="https://www.eugdpr.org/the-regulation.html">laid out</a> in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, a new set of laws designed to give European citizens more data privacy, which will be enforced in May (the United Kingdom <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr">will comply</a>, despite Brexit). Google and the unnamed man first faced off in court for this suit <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/02/27/do-people-have-the-right-to-be-forgotten-online.html">in March</a> after the company refused to take down the search results in hopes of being able to move on with his life.
Google initially argued that the Right to be Forgotten is not a way to “rewrite history.” But now it will comply with the court’s decision, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/13/google-loses-right-to-be-forgotten-case">a report in The Guardian</a>. The search engine will no longer include links to news articles and other accounts of the man’s conviction of conspiracy to intercept communications. The articles and pages will not be deleted, but a Google search will not include them.
This decision could be used as a legal precedent to give people more rights over the monolith of online data that looms over us all. But it also may come as a relief to those who are also displeased with what Google tells the world about them.
But so far, it seems that the impact will be isolated. There was another plaintiff who also had a criminal record and brought Google to court after a request to remove his search results was denied. He, however, lost his legal battle because the court determined the circumstances of his case were more important for the public to know about, so his Google trail will remain searchable and un-scrubbed.
This distinction will likely be a critical element of future legal decisions because it introduces some subjectivity. There&#8217;s specific language to allow for this in the Right to be Forgotten. In order for information about a person to be removed from a search engine like Google, courts have to weigh that person’s interests against the relevance of that information to the public.
While today’s decision could help people take control over the data that follows them around online, it’s still unclear how this will all pan out. The only reason that the courts got involved in the first place is because Google initially refused to remove references to the two criminal records — clearly, the tech giant is still interested in acting as the arbiter of all online information.
If you’re trying to get on with your life and leave your digital past behind, no matter if it&#8217;s a mistake you made decades ago or just the embarrassing pictures from your middle school Myspace account, the mixed results from this court ruling show that it very likely won&#8217;t be a straightforward process.

A decision that bolsters the complex Right to be Forgotten.

Google ordered to remove search results under "Right to be Forgotten"

Future Society

Google was ordered to remove search results for a man's criminal record when a judge ruled they were no longer relevant to the public.

Google Ordered to Remove Search Results Under "Right to be Forgotten"

Google initially refused to remove references to the two criminal records — clearly, the tech giant is still interested in acting as the arbiter of all online information.

Court Orders Google to Remove Results for Man’s Criminal Record Under “Right to be Forgotten”

<h2>AI v. Human Lawyers</h2>
It&#8217;s hard to ignore the ways artificial intelligence (AI) has already bested humans, from <a href="https://futurism.com/ai-makes-fake-videos-facilitate-end-reality-know-it/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">making incredibly convincing internet videos</a> to <a href="https://futurism.com/googles-alphago-proves-its-mettle-against-a-team-of-five/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">beating humanity&#8217;s best Go players</a>. AI is expected to outpace humans in a number of occupations; some of which might be a little unexpected.
A new study released this week <a href="https://futurism.com/an-ai-law-firm-wants-to-automate-the-entire-legal-world/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">from LawGeex</a>, a leading AI contract review platform, has revealed a new area in which AI outperforms us: Law. Specifically, reviewing Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and accurately spotting risks within the legal documentation.
For the study, 20 human attorneys were pitted against LawGeex&#8217;s AI in reviewing 5 NDAs. The controlled conditions of the study were designed to resemble how lawyers would typically review and approve everyday contracts.
<figure id="attachment_124839" style="width: 600px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.lawgeex.com/AIvsLawyer/"><img class="wp-image-124839 size-infographicListing" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-27-at-8.31.35-AM-600x470.png" alt="" width="600" height="470" /></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">image credit: Lawgeex (click for the full infographic)</figcaption></figure>
After two months of testing, the results were in: the AI finished the test with an average accuracy rating of 94 percent, while the lawyers achieved an average of 85 percent. The AI&#8217;s highest accuracy rating on an individual test was 100 percent, while the highest rating a human lawyer achieved on a single contract was 97 percent.
As far as accuracy goes, the study showed that humans can (for the most part) keep up with AI in reviewing contracts. The same couldn&#8217;t be said when it came to speed, however.
On average, the lawyers took 92 minutes to finish reviewing the contracts. The longest time taken by an individual lawyer was 156 minutes and the shortest 51 minutes.
LawGeex&#8217;s AI, on the other hand, only needed 26 seconds.
<h2>Law &amp; Order: AI</h2>
<a href="http://gould.usc.edu/faculty/?id=220" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gillian K. Hadfield</a>, Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Southern California, and one of the consultants on the study says the efficiency gap between the two groups may be even wider than we realize. In the study, the lawyers were completely and singularly focused on the task at hand. In the real world, however, they would have other responsibilities to tend to, distractions, and interruptions which would likely increase the actual time it takes them to review contracts.
&#8220;This experiment may actually understate the gain from AI in the legal profession,&#8221; says Hadfield. &#8220;The lawyers who reviewed these documents were fully focused on the task: it didn’t sink to the bottom of a to-do list, it didn’t get rushed through while waiting for a plane or with one eye on the clock to get out the door to pick up the kids.&#8221;
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bmJJAslPZ44?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
While law might be a fairly new domain for AI, it&#8217;s hardly the only area in which AI has been shown to outperform humans in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Medicine, too, has demonstrated the many potential applications for AI. For example, researchers from the John Radcliffe Hospital and the startup Optellum are working on AI systems that <a href="https://futurism.com/ai-diagnose-heart-disease-lung-cancer-more-accurately-doctors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can diagnose heart disease and lung cancer earlier </a>and more accurately than human doctors. At the Singapore National Eye Center, researchers have created an AI <a href="https://futurism.com/medical-ai-may-better-spotting-eye-disease-real-doctors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">that can spot eye disease</a> sooner than human doctors can.
The medical field isn&#8217;t the last stop for AI, either. In February, AI proved capable of<a href="https://futurism.com/ai-earthquakes-traditional-methods/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> detecting more earthquakes in Oklahoma</a> than traditional methods. And as this year&#8217;s Winter Olympics wrapped up, the International Gymnastics Federation announced it intends to <a href="https://futurism.com/ai-judges-score-gymnastics-2020-olympics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">use AI to assist judges during the 2020 Olympics</a>.
AI still has to prove itself in many areas, so it&#8217;s hardly &#8220;case closed&#8221; — but for attorneys who might be looking to hand off some of their administrative drudgeries, there&#8217;s a clear verdict on AI&#8217;s usefulness in the law office, at least.

20 human attorneys were pitted against LawGeex’s AI in reviewing five non-disclosure agreements.

The verdict is in: AI outperforms human lawyers in reviewing legal documents

Artificial Intelligence

A new study from LawGeex reveals AI can review legal documents in a fraction of the time it takes human lawyers, all without sacrificing accuracy.

The Verdict Is In: AI Outperforms Human Lawyers in Reviewing Legal Documents

AI v. Humans — another case closed. 

<h2>The Monkey Law</h2>
In 1925, a high school science teacher named John Scopes was arrested, tried, and convicted of the crime of teaching evolution to his class in a public school in the state of Tennessee. Under a law known as The Butler Act, Tennessee had put an outright ban on the teaching of evolution in public schools. <a href="https://www.aclu.org/other/state-tennessee-v-scopes" target="_blank">The Scopes Trial</a>, as it became known, lasted just eight days, at the end of which the jury reached their verdict in less than ten minutes. But that week produced one of the most memorable, landmark legal cases in U.S. history, made the American Civil Liberties Union a household name, and forever changed how the American public viewed science education.
The Butler Act remained intact for almost another fifty years after Scopes, only to be <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/50-years-ago-repeal-of-tennessees-monkey-law/" target="_blank">repealed in 1967</a> after being challenged by another young science teacher: Gary L. Scott, who had been fired for teaching evolution at a high school in Jacksboro, Tennessee. Having challenged the constitutionality of the law and succeeded, once the repeal in Tennessee was signed, <a href="https://ncse.com/node/15996" target="_blank">other states that had similar legislation</a> prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools followed suit. But there was never really any reprieve: even today, almost a century after the Scopes trial, the fight to teach evolution in public schools is far from being over.
<iframe width="500" height="375" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ofM99LFZhxo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<h2>Evolution Alternatives</h2>
While it&#8217;s no longer illegal for America&#8217;s public school science teachers to teach evolution, in the decades that have elapsed since Scopes, religious groups have endeavored to enforce the teaching of &#8220;alternatives&#8221; alongside evolution. These include biblical creationism, <a href="https://futurism.com/teaching-creationism-as-science-banned-in-all-uk-public-schools/">scientific creationism</a>, and intelligent design — all of which, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml" target="_blank">to varying extents</a>, teach that life on Earth did not arise solely through evolution.
There are also those who have lobbied for teachers to have the ability to teach evolution in a way that presents it as being scientifically controversial: this gross misrepresentation of established scientific data and hard evidence has alarmed some science educators even more than the outright rejection of the concept. While laws that enforce the teaching of evolution &#8220;alternatives&#8221; have not successfully passed, since 2004 <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/" target="_blank">three states have passed legislation</a> permitting teachers to teach evolution in a way that frames it as being scientifically controversial.
While it may be controversial socially, evolution is not a controversial topic within the science community: a 2014 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 98 percent of scientists believe in evolution. Among the general public, <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/" target="_blank">one third of Americans reject evolution</a> outright. Even more, over half of those who reject it say they don&#8217;t think scientists agree on evolution, and even among the general public — regardless of personal views on evolution — nearly 30 percent perceive a level of disagreement among scientists on the topic.
These beliefs persist despite the statistics that indicate scientists do agree on evolution. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), while it recognizes the long history of controversy, does not condone the teaching of concurrent &#8220;alternatives&#8221; with the teaching of evolution, nor do they condone the misrepresentative teaching of evolution as being scientifically dubious. Still, a report from 2007 indicated that 1 in 8 public high school biology teachers presented creationism as being scientifically credible, and 6 in 10 were teaching evolution in a way that misrepresented its scientific soundness.
The misrepresentation of any scientific concept, evolution included, does not adequately prepare students for post-secondary education, careers in STEM fields, or their lives in a world that&#8217;s being constantly innovated through scientific and technological advancements. <a href="http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx" target="_blank">In the NSTA&#8217;s view</a>, &#8220;twisting and abusing core pedagogical principles, such as critical thinking and scientific inquiry, is another strategy designed to open science classroom doors to non-science.&#8221;
Since the debate began, the &#8220;non-science&#8221; referred to here has been religion — specifically the teachings of the Bible. In the U.S., the majority of the pushback against evolution being taught in public schools <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/" target="_blank">has been driven by</a> major Evangelical Protestant, Jehovah&#8217;s Witness, and Mormon churches. Contrary to popular belief, the <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html" target="_blank">Catholic Church does not reject evolution</a>, and according to Pew Research, <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-human-evolution/" target="_blank">31 percent of Catholics</a> believe in evolution.
The power of the pushback which began nearly one hundred years ago is still being felt by public school educators: in 2007, 1 in 5 U.S. high school science teachers reported experiencing community backlash for teaching evolution. Having examined the statistics, it may be that scientists have to do more than convince the American public to accept evolution; they must communicate to them that they believe in it themselves.

Op-Ed

In 2007, 1 in 5 U.S. high school science teachers reported experiencing community backlash for teaching evolution.

The Battle to Teach Evolution in Public Schools Is Far From Over

It's 2017, and this is still an issue.

In a world-first, New Zealand’s third largest river has just been granted the same legal rights as a human being.
The new legislation essentially combines Western legal precedent with Maori mysticism. According to the Maori —a tribe of the Whanganui in the North Island who has been fighting to assert their rights over the river since the 1870s —their efforts to protect the river stems from the deep spiritual connection of the tribe to nature.
“The approach of granting legal personality to a river is unique […][It] will have its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person,” says Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.
<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Whanganui_River#/media/File:Along_the_River_Road_by_Jacqui_McGowan.jpg"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/03/Along_the_River_Road_by_Jacqui_McGowan-1400x600.jpg" alt="*5* New Zealand Just Gave a River The Same Rights as a Living Human Being" /></a>
<h2>I Am the River and the River is Me</h2>
Given the river’s new status, this basically means that should someone abuse or harm the river, it will by law be recognized as an attack against the tribe.
“The reason we have taken this approach is because we consider the river an ancestor and always have. We have fought to find an approximation in law so that all others can understand that from our perspective treating the river as a living entity is the correct way to approach it, as in indivisible whole, instead of the traditional model for the last 100 years of treating it from a perspective of ownership and management,&#8221; Gerrard Albert, the lead negotiator for the Whanganui iwi tribe, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being">The Guardian</a>.
This new approach to protecting the environment could ultimately serve as a precedent for those attempting to protect and preserve nature in this era of climate change, where pollution and other abuses are steadily contributing to its deterioration.
The tribe also received an NZ$ 80 million ($56 million USD) settlement following the legal battle, which will go towards improving the river’s health.

Woman canoeing on river Whanganui, North Island, New Zealand

Earth & Energy

Given the river’s new status, this basically means that should someone abuse or harm the river, it will by law be recognized as an attack against the tribe.

A River Was Just Granted the Same Legal Rights as a Human Being

Could treating the environment like a person be the best way to protect it?

<h2>The letter of the law</h2>
An interesting study published recently in the journal <a href="https://peerj.com/articles/cs-93/" target="_blank">PeerJ Computer Science</a> explored how well an artificial intelligence (AI) system could predict the outcomes of court cases.
The study was a combined effort by researchers from <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/" target="_blank">University College London (UCL)</a> and the universities of <a href="http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Sheffield</a> and <a href="http://www.upenn.edu/" target="_blank">Pennsylvania</a>. They programmed an AI system to sift through hundreds of cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights and predict the outcomes of each. The algorithm worked by labeling the cases either as a &#8220;violation&#8221; or a &#8220;non-violation.&#8221; The AI was able to correctly predict the outcomes of 584 cases at a 79 percent rate of accuracy.
The cases covered three articles of the European Convention on Human Rights that had a fairly large amount of published data: Article 3 on torture and dehumanizing treatment, Article 6 covering the right for a fair trial, and Article 8 on respect for privacy. The team also selected an equal number of violation and non-violation cases, in order to avoid bias.
&#8220;Ideally, we&#8217;d test and refine our algorithm using the applications made to the court rather than the published judgements, but without access to that data, we rely on the court-published summaries,&#8221; co-author <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1016/241016-AI-predicts-outcomes-human-rights-trials" target="_blank">Vasileios Lampos said</a>.
<figure style="width: 800px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2016/10/4928.jpg" alt="Credits: Frederick Florin/AFP/Getty Images" width="800" height="480" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Credits: Frederick Florin/AFP/Getty Images</figcaption></figure>
<h2>Not yet ready for the gavel</h2>
The AI was able to judge the law quite fairly, but it&#8217;s not equipped to understand the subtleties of it — not yet, at least. Whenever it came across similar cases with one judged as a violation and the other one not, the algorithm got the judgments wrong. In cases as important as those regarding human rights violations, these inaccuracies could have profound implications.
&#8220;There is a lot of hype about AI, but we don&#8217;t see it replacing judges or lawyers any time soon. What we do think is they&#8217;d find it useful for rapidly identifying patterns in cases that lead to certain outcomes,&#8221; <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1016/241016-AI-predicts-outcomes-human-rights-trials" target="_blank">said Nikolaos Aletras</a>, study lead at UCL.
They plan to test the AI with more data, but what they&#8217;ve already created does show potential. <a href="https://futurism.com/artificially-intelligent-lawyer-ross-hired-first-official-law-firm/" target="_blank">An AI lawyer (or paralegal)</a> is already employed by law firms to sift through piles of legal data, and with this AI judge predicting the majority of cases accurately, there may be a future for AI in the very old and nuanced field of law.

The AI was able to correctly predict the outcomes of 584 cases at a 79 percent rate of accuracy, though it had trouble understanding the subtleties of some cases.
While this AI won't be judging cases of its own any time soon, the technology could be used to rapidly identify patterns in cases that lead to specific outcomes.

/Law

Helpful Hemp

Seven Ways Cannabis Legalization Will Make the Future Better

Space Tourism

Lawyer: People Could Try to Sell the Apollo Moon Footprints

Drawing Straws

Users of Crypto Site Where Dead CEO Lost $196M Are Preparing Suit

Space Law

These Four Universities Are Trying to Figure Out Space Law

AI Legalization

This Startup Is Trying to Automate Law Firms

Future Society

Court Orders Google to Remove Results for Man’s Criminal Record Under “Right to be Forgotten”

Artificial Intelligence

The Verdict Is In: AI Outperforms Human Lawyers in Reviewing Legal Documents

Op-Ed

The Battle to Teach Evolution in Public Schools Is Far From Over

Earth & Energy

A River Was Just Granted the Same Legal Rights as a Human Being

Artificial Intelligence

A New Kind of Judge? AI Lawyer Correctly Predicts Outcomes of Human Rights Cases

Load More