SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY
AND SOCIETY
(MIDTERM Lesson 1-5)
Diagnostics

Instructions: Examine the picture and follow the prompt that follows.

LESSON Recent researchers found that 70% of people

in middle- and high-income countries believe

2 that overconsumption is putting the planet

and society at risk. Discuss your thoughts
about the following:

1. How do you think overconsumption

puts the planet and society at risk?
This planet, Earth, doesn’t belong
to us. We are just human who lives
here temporarily. One day, the Earth
will strike back. It will revenge to us
slowly. If we will still continue to
consume everything the Earth has
given to us, we must get ready for the possible revenges of the Earth does in the future.

2. What are the manifestations of society's tendency to over produce and over consume?
Due to overpopulation, society continues to over-produce and over-consume. Human always do
what they think is best for their future or society, without even knowing that us humans does also
harmful effects on our nature.

3. Should middle- and high-income countries regulate their growth and consumption? Why or why not?
Yes, of course. Growth and consumption should be balance to everyone that lives in our planet. The
more countries that over produce and over consume, the lesser those in low-income countries to
receive such resources for them. That’s why it should be balance. Those on middle- and high-income
countries has to help those in low-income countries in order for the resources to be equally divided
for all.

Exercise 1. Reading Comprehension Task

Instructions: After reading Hickel's article on the concept of de-development, answer the following questions
in two to three sentences.
1. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about?
The de-development framework is aimed at changing the concept of development from economic
growth to life expectancy and happiness. Instead of pushing the poorer countries to “catch up” with rich
ones, we should be thinking of ways to get the rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of
development.

2. How is the de-development framework different from traditional frameworks of development?

The traditional framework for development is that we need more growth to change or make our
lives easier. The de-development framework is about changing the concept of development from economic
growth to life expectancy and happiness.
 3. According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop?
Rich countries can grow by reducing their consumption. There are people who buy things only to
show off their status. This is something that needs to be avoided.

4. Why does Hickel frown upon pundits using terms such as de-growth, zero growth, or de-development in
describing an alternative framework?
Hickel thinks that their use of language gives the person who really doesn't know anything about it
a false impression of what de-development really means. He needs people to realize that de-development is
not to lose, to seize to learn, to seize to evolve or to decentralize, but to think of it as human progress.

5. Some people might think that de-development is about giving things up. How does Hickel explain that this
is not the case?
“de-development” does not mean to give things up easily. Hence, it means to “slowdown” by simply
reducing consumption while maintaining happiness and achieving long life expectancy.

Exercise 2. Personal Consumption Audit

Instructions: People believe that the more they are able to purchase things and avail of services, the more
'developed' and 'progressive' are the lives they lead. Yet, Hickel made it clear in his article that huge
consumption does not necessarily equate to long and happy lives. In this sense, is it possible for people to also
de-develop their consumption, but still remain happy and contented? Accomplish the personal consumption
audit table below and see what things you can reduce or minimize without sacrificing, or even improving, the
quality of your daily life. For your guidance, the first row has been provided as an example.
My Personal Consumption Audit
Product/Food Average daily, weekly No. of hours/day I Impact of this de-developing on my everyday
or monthly amount reduce/do away with living
consumed
1. Social Two (2) hours/week One (1) hour and By minimizing the number of hours, I can be
Media thirty (30) free from toxicity that I consume from social
Usage minutes/week media platforms. Therefore, I can be happier
and I can spend more time with my family.

2. Netflix Five (5) hours/day Three (3) hours/day By minimizing the number of hours, I spend
on Netflix, I can interact more on what’s
happening around me. I can also be free from
possible emotions that I will feel if I watch
something on Netflix.
3. Playing Five (5) hours/day Two (2) hours/day By reducing the number of hours, I spend on
games on playing games on the computer, I can have
Computer more time to answer my modules.

4. Eating Every day Will stop By minimizing the number of hours, I spend
unhealthy permanently / on eating unhealthy foods I will be healthier
foods Abstinence and prevent possible illnesses in the future.

5. Browsing any Two (2) One (1) hour/weekly By minimizing the number of hours, I spend on
products on Shopee hours/weekly browsing products that I can’t even buy I can
or on any Store on just have a rest instead. In this way my mind will
the Internet be free from anything that leads to happiness.
Exercise 3. Reaction Paper
Discuss the similarities and differences between Jason Hickel's framework of de-development and Martin
Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology. Then, write a 200- to 300-word reaction paper on Hickel's
article. Use Heideggerian concepts learned in the previous section in explaining your thoughts and ideas about
Hickel's. Develop your on title. (Write in a separate paper)

Similarities and differences between Jason Hickel’s framework of de-development and Martin
Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology

One thing I found about their similarities was that they were both worried about balancing. They are both
concerned with the disruptive nature of influential human constructions, such as technology/economic policy.
But none of these structures can be seen as evil, which is why balancing is the key in all. These major stuffs
we've made that have gotten out of control and need to be used to survive on our planet for a longer period of
time.

However even though they have similarities, they also have differences. Heidegger is concerned with how
we are in contact with ourselves, with our being with the universe in which we naturally exist. Technology
will get us out of that. Hickel's issues are more socio-political—poverty, sustainability. When he's resolved,
Heidegger's technology reflects us like a poignant life lesson, while Hickel's economy is raising the standards
of human life and the natural environment.

Hickel’s Article: A Reaction Paper

Hickel's article focuses on changing the concept of development from economic growth to life expectancy
and happiness. This means that instead of forcing developing countries to rise faster and catch up with richer
countries. We should concentrate on thinking about ways in which rich countries can catch up to a more
acceptable level of growth.

But what happens if the developing countries doesn’t want that to happen? This is where Heidegger’s The
Dangers of Technology becomes appropriate. If humans would be so fascinated with the emerging
technologies, they will forget about the poorer countries. Since they have the means to enjoy the advance
technologies, they won’t think of maintaining life expectancy and happiness. And soon will realize that the
technology has dangers if it was consumed too much. According to Heidegger, “the closer we come to the
danger, the more brightly do the way into the saving power begin to shine and the more questioning we
become. For questioning is the piety of thought.” (1977, p. 19) If the developed countries begin to question
about the dangers they will experience, then they will realize that they need to take a step back and reassess
who they are and what they needed to do. If those developed countries were able to answer this, then they
will realize about the idea of Hickel’s article “de-development”.

In conclusion, the emerging technology and the idea of de-development are just the same. They are both
designed so that our planet would be balance, and it was also stated that there will always danger in
everything if it was consumed too much.
Assignment 2. Documentary Film Analysis
Instructions: Watch and take notes on the documentary film, The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis and the Case
Against Scientism, available You Tube [Link] Then answer the
following questions:
1. Why was C. S. Lewis very much a skeptic and critic of scientism? Was he against science?
CS Lewis was not really against science, but he was opposed to the ignorant assumption held by
some that "modern science provides the only reliable method of knowledge of the world". Moreover, he
was also opposed to the notion that scientists should dictate public policy and religious and moral
convictions solely on the basis of their scientific experience. Lewis lived and worked amongst some of the
brightest intellects of his day many of whom were scientists.

2. How did C. S. Lewis explain the following:

2.1. science as religion
Science has the power to induce devotion to the same degree as any religion; its prophets are
scientists and professors, and their decrees are faultless. This greatness of the universe gives us a sense of
meaning and reason that transcends the physical world, entering the domain of the spiritual world. Also,
for those who are not believers, this mystical view of the universe can actually be more convincing, since
science-as-religion substitutes science for God (religion) (magic, politics). Thus, in fact, after Darwin's
"The Origin of Species" (1859), modern science has indeed been a pseudo-religion; a racist, diabolical cult
and a servile slave to socialist politics and government funding.

2.2. science as credulity

According to C. S. Lewis, Science and magic are identical in classic sense is their encouragement of a
lack of skepticism. This may seem paradoxical to a lot of people; nevertheless, science/magic may support
a kind of credulous thinking where you only slavishly believe whatever the "expert" says. Skeptics or
dissidents, for example, are mocked as "global warming deniers," "flat-earthers" and are regularly refused
tenure as professors. How does science promote this kind of credulous and slavish group? Lewis pointed
out that in the modern world, people would believe almost anything if they're dressed up in the name of
science. Lewis concluded that both Darwinian and Freudian theories ultimately lacked the critical
ingredient of reason: “If my own mind is the product of the irrational,” he asked, “how shall I trust my
mind when it tells me about evolution?”

2.3. science as power

According to C. S. Lewis, the third connection is about lust for power. Magic wants power above all
else. Magicians, fortune-tellers, witches, they all seek control over the natural world and the universe.
They want to possess the deeper, mystical forces of nature, in order to control it, to control people.
Likewise, Lewis recognized that much of modern science was ultimately derived from world influence,
and starting in the mid-1800s, using that godlike power was essential to usher in a new age of scientific
utopia. Science, therefore, is now the new savior to rebuild our universe, independent of "God."

3. Why did C. S. Lewis think that modern science is far more dangerous than magic?
Science makes magic possible. The distinction, of course, is that forces do not emanate directly from
us, but through our imagination and instruments.

4. Why did C. S. Lewis become increasingly concerned about the rise of scientocracy? How does scientocracy
relate to scientism?
He was worried about the incorrect use of science, and that is why he became more worried about
it. It concerns science, because it could be used in the opposite way and for the opposite purposes.
Incorrect information or no information is being manipulated and used to dictate.
5. Based on what you learned in the documentary film, how does scientism pose threat to the human person
flourishing in science and technology? Why should science be guided by an ethical basis that is not
dictated by science itself?
Science provides a threat since it is the use of science techniques to clarify nearly any aspect of
human life. From a documentary, people will use science to take charge of the environment, probably
because people will always indulge with something as much as it does in the interest of science.