MODULE 3
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
AND SOCIETY
THROUGHOUT
HISTORY
MOTIVATIO
N
Learning
At Outcomes:
the end of this lesson learners
are expected to:
• CRITIQUE HUMAN
FLOURISHING VIS-À-VIS THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY.
• EXPLAIN HICKEL’S PARADIGM
OF “DE-DEVELOPMENT”.
INTROD
UCTION
The quest for human progress and flourishing has
always been at the center of civilization. People
always seek to live better lives and provide a better
life for their kids. In the process, they seek to live
lives of meaning and aspire to fulfill their potential.
Although societies are made up of heterogeneous
individuals with different preferences, people
reliably organize themselves in groups,
communities, or nations in an effort to improve the
status quo (progress).
ACTI
VITY
Instruction: Visit the link:
[Link]
, and watch the video.
ANALYSIS
Instruction: In a document, answer the following
question/s?
0 0
1
How do we prevent
2
How do we contribute to
ecological collapse? bio-capacity as a third-
world country?
LESS
ON
PRO
HUMAN
FLOURISHING AS
REFLECTED IN
According to Jason Hickel (an anthropologist in London School of
PROGRESS AND
economics)
DEVELOPMENT
• Forget ‘developing’ countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich
countries.
• Heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new
sustainable development goals (SDG’s). The main objective is to
eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One Direction and Malala are
on board. Its set to be monumental international celebration.
• Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDG 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
• Growth has been the main object of development for the
past 70 years, despite the fact that it is 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 increase 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
population to the poorer, evening things put a bit.
• In other words, growth isn’t an option anymore, we’ve
already grown too much.
• 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 used and waste.
WHAT DOES THIS
MEAN FOR OUR
THEORY
• Economist OF
Peter Edward argues that instead of
DEVELOPMENT?
pushing poorer countries to “catch up” the 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 US, LIFE EXPECTANCY IS 79 YEARS
AND GDP PER CAPITAL IS $53,000. BUT
MANY COUNTRIES HAS 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
70% OF PEOPLE IN MIDDLE- AND HIGH-INCOME
COUNTRIES BELIEVE OVERCONSUMPTION IS
PUTTING OUR PLANET AND SOCIETY AT RISK
• The idea of ‘de-developing’ rich countries might prove to
be a strong rallying cry in the global south, but it will 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 indigenous
concept of buen vivir or good living.
• Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road on
his book How much is enough? where they layout 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 of
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.
APPLICATIO
NIn a document,
Instructions:
answer the following:
QUESTI QUESTI QUESTI QUESTI
ON 01
WHAT IS THE MAIN
ON 02
WHAT IS THE ON 03 ON 04
OBJECTIVE OF THE WHAT IS THE ACCORDING TO HICKEL,
STANDARDIZED
WHAT MUST BE DONE
SUSTAINABLE
UNIT THAT STANDARD
INSTEAD OF URGING POOR
DEVELOPMENT GOALS RESPONSE TO
MEASURES COUNTRIES TO "CATCH
OF THE UNITED ERADICATING
RESOURCE USE UP" WITH RICH ONES?
NATIONS?
AND WASTE? POVERTY?
THAN
K
RESOURCE
PAGE