Southwestern College of Maritime, Business and Technology, Inc.
Quezon Drive, Calero, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
[Link] / [Link]@[Link] / slmifnav@[Link]
SUBJECT: Science, Technology, and Society MODULE #: 5
SECTION: TEACHER: Ms. Princes Jhoy G. Batanes
I. TOPIC: Human Flourishing in Science and Technology & Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress
and Development
II. TARGET OUTCOMES
At the end of the lesson, the student is expected to:
1. Discuss what technology reveals.
2. Examine modern technology and its role in human flourishing
3. Pick a work of art that you feel best reveals technology and reflect how the artwork
describes and reveals technology.
4. Critique human flourishing vis-à-vis the progress of science and technology
5. Explain Hickel’s paradigm of “development”.
6. Watch the video clip titled The Magician’s Twin: CS Lewis and the Case against Scientism
and reflect on the notions of development that may evolve into scientism.
III. MATERIALS NEEDED
To accomplish exercises and activities, you need the following: black pen, pencil and/or other writing
materials and other available references
IV. GEAR UP YOUR MIND
The progress of human civilization s throughout history mirrors the development of science and
technology. The human person, as both the bearer and beneficiary of science and technology, flourishes
and finds meaning in the world that he/she builds. In the person’s pursuit of the good life, he/she may
unconsciously acquire, consume, or destroy what the world has to offer. It is thus necessary to reflect on
the things that truly matter. Science and technology must be taken as part of human life that merits
reflective and – as the German philosopher Martin Heidegger says – meditative thinking. Science and
technology, despite its methodical and technical nature, gives meaning to the life of a person making
his/her way in the world.
To be able to appreciate the fruits of science and technology, they must be examined not only for
their function and instrumentality but also for their greater impact on humanity as a whole. The various
gadgets, machines, appliances, and vehicles are all tools that make human lives easier because they serve
as a means to an end. Their utility lies on providing people with a certain good, convenience, or knowledge.
Meanwhile, medical research employs the best scientific and technological principles to come up with cures
for diseases and ways to prevent illnesses to ensure a good quality of life.
1.1 Technology as a Mode of Revealing
In his seminal work, The Question of Technology, Martin Heidegger urges us to question
technology and see beyond people’s common understanding of it.
According to ancient doctrine, the essence of a thing is considered to be what the thing is. We ask
the question concerning technology when we ask what it is. Everyone knows the two statements that
answer our question. One says: Technology is a means to an end. The other says: Technology is a human
activity. The two definitions of technology belong together. For to posit ends and procure and utilize the
means to them is a human activity. The manufacture and utilization of equipment, tools, and machines, the
manufactured and used things themselves, and the needs and ends that they serve, all belong to what
technology is. The whole complex of these contrivances is technology. Technology itself is a contrivance—
in Latin, an instrumentum. The current conception of technology, according to which it is a means and a
human activity, can therefore be called the instrumental and anthropological definition of technology.
(Heidegger, 1997, p. 5).
This definition is correct but not necessarily true. The “true” entails so much more meaning and
significance. Heidegger, however, asserted that the true can be pursued through the correct. In other
words, the experience and understanding of what is correct lead us to what is true. Heidegger urged people
to envision technology as a mode of revealing as it shows so much more about the human person and the
world. Technology is a way of bringing fort, a making something. By considering technology as a mode of
revealing, then truth is brought forth. For instance the truth that the Earth is weeping could be revealed by
the information and data taken by modern devices. Whatever truth is uncovered, it will be something more
meaningful and significant than the superficial or practical use of technology.
Heidegger also put forward the ancient Greek concepts of aletheia, poiesis, and techne. Aletheia
means unhiddenness or disclosure. Poeisis is defined as bringing forth. For Aristotle, it means making or
producing something for a purpose. It is sometimes used to refer to poetry and composition. Finally, techne
(the root for technology) means skills, art, or craft. It is a means of bringing forth something. Thus, in
Heidegger’s work, technology is a poeisis that discloses or reveals the truth.
1.2 Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress and Development
How do we know that we are progressing? What are the indicators of development? More often
than not, development is equated with growth and greater consumption. The more that a population is able
to consume, the wealthier it is. Likewise, the more that a person is able to but stuff, the higher he/she is on
the development scale. The planet, however, is already overburdened with human activities. It is about time
that we rethink our standards of development if we truly want to live the good life. Jason Hickel, an
anthropologist at the London School of Economics, challenges us to rethink and reflect on a different
paradigm of “de-development”.
Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries
Jason Hickel
Heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable development goals
(SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One Direction and Malala are on
board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.
Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save the
world, but beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty is the
same: growth.
Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it’s not
working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people living in poverty on
less than $5 (£3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That’s 17 times the population of Britain.
So much for the trickle-down effect.
Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us that
we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the population to the poorer ones,
evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because even at current levels of average
global consumption, we’re overshooting our planet’s bio-capacity by more than 50% each year.
In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are
now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth is that
this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries.
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global hectares”
annually – a standardized unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what the
average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada consume
about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that instead
of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get rich countries
to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at societies where people live
long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as basket cases that need to
be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living.
How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years
and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere
fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy
rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the
threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua
and Tunisia.
Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields improvements in
quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But even if we look at
measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of low- and middle-
income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and
life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US.
In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as
appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global
south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent consumer
research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our
planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should strive to buy and own less, and that
doing so would not compromise our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with the dominant
model of economic progress and they are hungry for an alternative narrative.
The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language.
They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development, which are technically
accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run
against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the purpose of life itself.
It’s like asking people to stop moving positively thorough life, to stop learning, improving, growing.
Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in the
right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need to reorient
ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward quality instead of
quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing amounts of stuff, which
doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not going to get us
there and we need to get rid of it.
Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organizing alternative visions around
the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own tradition of reflection on the good
life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his book How Much is
Enough? where they lay out the possibility of interventions such as banning advertising, a shorter working
week and a basic income, all of which would improve our lives while reducing consumption.
Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the laws
of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative; it is also a development
one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as food systems collapse
and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or
imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of
understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.