Science Technology and the Human Condition

CHAPTER 2-UNIT 4: WHEN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN CROSS

A human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development
One’s human rights in the face of scientific and technological advancement are critical factors in
the journey toward Eudaimonia or the good life. Exercise of the right to accept or reject,
minimize or maximize, and evaluate and decide on the scope and function of science and
technology indicates human flourishing in science and technology. The protection of the well-
being and the upholding of dignity of the human person must be at the core of continued
progress and development. Such is the focus of a human rights-based approach to science,
technology, and development.
S. Romi Mukherjee, a senior lecturer in Political Theory and the History of Religions at the
Paris Institute of Political Studies, explained human rights-based approach to science, technology
and development as follows:
“[It] seeks to place a concern for human rights at the heart of how the international community
engages with urgent global challenges. The UN Development Programme characterizes this
approach as one that ‘leads to better and more sustainable outcomes by analyzing and addressing
the inequalities, discriminatory practices and unjust power relations which are often at the heart
of development problems. It puts the international human rights entitlements and claims of the
people (the ‘right-holders’) and the corresponding obligations of the state (the ‘duty-bearer’) in
the center of the national development debate, and it clarifies the purpose of capacity
development
Mukherjee (2012) furthered that this approach identifies science as ‘a socially organized, human
activity which is value-laden and shaped by organizational structures and procedures.’ Moreover,
it requires answer on whether governments and other stakeholders could craft and implement
science and technology policies that ‘ensure safety, health and livelihoods; include people's
needs and priorities in development and environmental strategies; and ensure they participate in
decision-making that affects their lives and resources.’
Multiple international statutes, declarations and decrees have been produced to ensure well-being
and human dignity. These documents are integral in a human rights-based approach to science,
technology and development. Mukherjee listed some of the most important documents that
center around a human rights-based approach to science, development, and technology, and their
key principles:
Table 2. Useful documents for a human-rights based approach
to science, technology, and development

A human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development provides parameters

for the appraisal to how science, technology, and development could promote human well-being.
Thus, a discussion of human rights in the face of changing scientific and technological contexts
must not serve merely decorative moral dimensions to science, technology, and development. As
Mukherjee (2012) posited, this approach ‘can form the very heart of sustainable futures.’
Human rights should be integral to the journey toward the ultimate good. They should serve to
guide humans to flourish not only as individual members of society, but also to function as
parameters on which to assist each other in flourishing as a unit, as a society. Human rights are
rights to sustainability, as Mukherjee put it. They may function as the ‘golden mean,’ particularly
by protecting the weak, poor and vulnerable from the deficiencies and excesses of science and
technology. By imposing upon science and technology the moral and ethical duty to protect and
uphold human rights, there can be a more effective and sustainable approach to bridging the gap
between poor and rich countries on aspects both tangible, such as services and natural resources,
and intangible, such as well-being and human dignity. Ultimately, all these would lead humans
to flourish together in science and technology.
CHAPTER 2-UNIT 5: WHY DOES THE FUTURE NOT NEED US?
Why the future doesn’t need us?
In April 2000, William Nelson Joy, an American computer scientist and chief scientist of Sun
Microsystems, wrote an article for Wired magazine entitled, ‘Why the future doesn’t need us?’ In his
article, Bill Joy warned against the rapid rise of new technologies. He explained:
“The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) - are so powerful that
they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these
accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require
large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them” (Joy, 2000).
He argued that robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology pose much greater threats than those
that have come before. He particularly cited bot’s ability to self-replicate, which could quickly get out of
control. In the article, he cautioned humans against overdependence on machines. He specifically stated:
“If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjectures as
to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that
the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race
would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither
that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would
willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a
position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the
machines' decisions.”
Joy also voiced out his apprehension about rapidly increasing computer power. Joy’s worry is that
computers will eventually become more intelligent than humans, thus ushering societies into dystopian
visions, such as robot rebellion. To illuminate his concern, Joy drew from Theodore Kaczynski’s book,
“Unabomber,” as follows:
“Kaczynski's dystopian vision describes unintended consequences, a well-known problem with
the design and use of technology, and one that is clearly related to Murphy's law – ‘Anything that can go
wrong, will.’ Our overuse of antibiotics has led to what may be the biggest such problem so far: the
emergence of antibiotic-resistant and much more dangerous bacteria. Similar things happened when
attempts to eliminate malarial mosquitoes using DDT caused them to acquire DDT resistance; malarial
parasites likewise acquired multi-drug-resistant genes.”
Since the publication of the article, Joy’s arguments against 21st-century technologies have received both
criticisms and expression of shared concern. His critics dismissed Joy’s article for deliberately presenting
information in an imprecise manner that obscures the larger picture or state of things. For one, John
Seely Brown and Paul Duguid (2001), in their article “A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom
Technofuturists,” criticized Joy’s failure to consider social factors and deliberately just focusing on one
part of the larger picture. Others go as far as accusing Joy of being a neo-Luddite, someone who rejects
new technologies and shows technophobic leanings.
CHAPTER 3-UNIT 1: SPECIFIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

I. INFORMATION AGE
Gutenberg’s printing press
 printing press was invented by German goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg around 1440
 a device that applies pressure to an inked surface lying on a medium i.e. cloth or paper to transfer
the ink
 hand mould printing press led to creation metal movable type
 a new branch of media was known as “the press”
 era of mass communication
 permanently reformed the structure of society
 political and religious authorities were threatened due to the increase of literate population
 middle class was distinguished
 proto-nationalism had grown due to rapid increase of vernacular languages
 rotary press run by steam and used in industrial scale printing in 19th century

Enigma machine
 Communications needed calculations due to advancing trade and industry
 Computers were people who compiled actuarial tables and did engineering calculations.
 During World War II, the Allies, countries that opposed the Axis powers (Germany, Japan and
Italy): had shortage of human computers for military calculations
 United States mechanized the problem by building the Harvard Mark 1wi
 an electromechanical monster 50 feet long
 capable of doing calculations in seconds
 British needed mathematicians to crack the German Navy’s Enigma code
 used by Germans to transcribe their messages in encryption using a machine called Enigma
 looked like an oversized typewriter

Alan Turing
 an English mathematician
 hired in in 1936 by the British Top-secret Government Code and Cipher School at Bletchley Park
to break the Enigma code
 code-breaking works became an industrial process having 12,000 people working three shifts day
in day out 24/7
 Nazis had made the Enigma machines more complicated having approximately 10114 possible
permutations
 Turing designed Bombe
 an electromechanical machine
 made the British able to read all daily German Naval Enigma traffic by searching through the
permutations
 saved millions of lives since the invention shortened the war by as much as two years
Turing Machine

 published paper entitled “On Computable Numbers, with an application to the

Entscheidungsproblem,” in 1936
 presented a theoretical machine, called the Turing machine
 solve any problem from simple instructions encoded on a paper tape
 demonstrated simulation of Turing machine to construct a single Universal Machine
 became the foundation of computer science and the invention of a machine that can solve any
problem by performing any task from a written program later called a computer
Apple 1

 A generation with “electronic brains” was born by the 1970s who wanted their own personal
computers (PCs).
 In 1975, members of the Homebrew Computer Club, became eager with the potential of the new
silicon chips
 allow them build their own computers
 Steve Wozniak built a simple computer around the 8080 microprocessor hooked up to a
keyboard and television in 1976
 Steve Jobs called the computer Apple I and sold replicates of this machine to a Silicon Valley
shop
 Bill Gates realized that PCs needed software and sold his Microsoft programs

From 1973 onwards different social media creations were introduced:

 multi-user chat rooms
 instant-messaging e.g. AOL, Yahoo messenger, MSN messenger, Windows messenger
 conferencing and bulletin-board forum system
 exchanging e-mails
 game-based social networking websites i.e. Friendster, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, VK, Tumblr
 business-oriented social networking websites i.e. Xing
 messaging, video and voice calling service e.g. Skype
 blogging platform, image and video hosting website e.g. Flicker
 discovery and dating-oriented website e.g. Tagged, Tinder
 video sharing service allowing users to post virtually everything e.g. YouTube
 real-time social media feed aggregator e.g. FriendFeed
 live-streaming e.g. Justin.tv, Twitch.tv
 photo-video sharing website e.g. Pinterest, Instagram, Snapchat, Keek, Vine
 question-and-answer platform e.g. Quora
 To date, these social-media platforms were just bought by one company owner to another and
were modified based on the dynamic needs of the users