Module in

NSCI 110:
Science, Technology and Society

Prof. Richelle O. Tuvillo

Team Leader/Coordinator

Dr. Larry D. Buban

Team Editor

Authors/Contributors:
Dr. Larry D. Buban Dr. Anita Estela M. Monroy
Dr. Harlan C. Dureza Ms. Vivien Mei C. Reyes
Prof. Eileen L. Loreno Dr. Stephen G. Sabinay
Dr. Grace A. Manajero Dr. Agatha Z. Senina

College of Arts and Sciences

Physical Science Department

1 Physical Science Department

 Unit 3: Science, Technology, Society, and the Human
Condition

NSCI 110

Dr. Harlan C. Dureza

Dr. Larry D. Buban
Prof. Richelle O. Tuvillo

2 Physical Science Department

 Contents
UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human Condition

There are four (4) lessons in this unit and listed as follows:
Lesson 1. Human Flourishing in Science and Technology
Lesson 1.1 Technology as a Mode of Revealing
Lesson 1.2 Technology as Poeisis: Applicable to Modern Technology?
Lesson 1.3 Questioning as the Piety of Thought
Lesson 1.4 Enframing Way of Revealing in Modern Technology
Lesson 1.5 Human Person Swallowed by Technology
Lesson 1.6 Art as a Way Out of Enframing

Lesson 2. Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress and Development

Lesson 2.1 "Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-

develop' rich countries”

Lesson 3. The Good Life

Lesson 3.1 Nicomachean Ethics and Modern Concepts

Lesson 4. When Technology and Humanity Cross

Lesson 4.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Lesson 4.2 Humans vs. Robots
Lesson 4.3 Why the future does not Need Us?

3 Physical Science Department

 UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human
Condition

Lesson 1. Human Flourishing in Science and Technology

(Week 9)

How Much Do You Know?

Let’s check your knowledge relative to the lesson.

TRUE or FALSE. Write the word true if the statement is correct. Write false
if the statement is incorrect.

1. Human flourishing is defined as being “good spirited” in the classical

Aristotelian notion.

2. Technology is means to an end.

3. Technology is a human activity.

4. Technology is a contrivance.

5. Technology is a way of bringing forth.

6. Piety maybe defined as obedience and submission.

7. Modern technology is a challenging forth because it defiles natural order.

8. Techne means “skill, art or craft”

9. Technology is a mode of revealing wherein TRUTH IS BROUGHT FORTH.

10. Modern Technology is a challenging forth for its aggressively in its activity.

4 Physical Science Department

 How well did you do?

How do you feel about the test? Did it make you feel confident or insecure?
Your feelings will be your guide to go slow or breeze through this module.

Here is the answer key and category to your pre-test.

1. True 6. True
2. True 7. True
3. True 8. True
4. True 9. True
5. True 10. True

A perfect 10 makes you Science Enthusiast. Please

continue to study this module as a review. If you go lower
than 10, studying this module is a must.

7-9 Science Imitator

4-6 Science Aspirant
0-3 Science Hopeful

5 Physical Science Department

 UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human
Condition

Lesson 1. Human Flourishing in Science and Technology

(Week 9)
Introduction:

The progress of human civilizations 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 the cures for diseases and ways to prevent illnesses to ensure a good quality of
life.

6 Physical Science Department

 Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this lesson the students must have,
1. discussed what technology reveals
2. examined modern technology and its role in human
flourishing
3. explained the role of art in a technological world

Activate your Prior Knowledge

This time relate your prior knowledge to the lesson.

Think about these questions:

What do you think constitute

human flourishing?

Is our reverence to science

justified? Explain.

Were we successful so far in trying

to tie down technology with what
we conceive as human flourishing?

7 Physical Science Department

 Acquire New Knowledge
This part will present the ideas aligned with the objectives of the lesson.

TECHNOLOGY AS MODE OF REVEALING

Heidegger’s concern with technology is not limited to his writings that are
explicitly dedicated to it, and a full appreciation of his views on technology requires
some understanding of how the problem of technology fits into his broader
philosophical project and phenomenological approach. (Phenomenology, for
Heidegger, is a method that tries to let things show themselves in their own way,
and not see them in advance through a technical or theoretical lens.) The most
important argument in Being and Timethat is relevant for Heidegger’s later thinking
about technology is that theoretical activities such as the natural sciences depend on
views of time and space that narrow the understanding implicit in how we deal with
the ordinary world of action and concern. We cannot construct meaningful distance
and direction, or understand the opportunities for action, from science’s neutral,
mathematical understanding of space and time. Indeed, this detached and
“objective” scientific view of the world restricts our everyday understanding. Our
ordinary use of things and our “concernful dealings” within the world are pathways
to a more fundamental and more truthful understanding of man and being than the
sciences provide; science flattens the richness of ordinary concern. By placing
science back within the realm of experience from which it originates, and by
examining the way our scientific understanding of time, space, and nature derives
from our more fundamental experience of the world, Heidegger, together with his
teacher Husserl and some of his students such as Jacob Klein and Alexandre Koyré,
helped to establish new ways of thinking about the history and philosophy of science.

Heidegger applies this understanding of experience in later writings that are

focused explicitly on technology, where he goes beyond the traditional view of
technology as machines and technical procedures. He instead tries to think through
the essence of technology as a way in which we encounter entities generally,
including nature, ourselves, and, indeed, everything. Heidegger’s most influential
work on technology is the lecture “The Question Concerning Technology,” published
in 1954, which was a revised version of part two of a four-part lecture series he
delivered in Bremen in 1949 (his first public speaking appearance since the end of
the war). These Bremen lectures have recently been translated into English, for the
first time, by Andrew J. Mitchell.

Introducing the Bremen lectures, Heidegger observes that because of

technology, “all distances in time and space are shrinking” and “yet the hasty setting
aside of all distances brings no nearness; for nearness does not consist in a small
amount of distance.” The lectures set out to examine what this nearness is that
remains absent and is “even warded off by the restless removal of distances.” As we
shall see, we have become almost incapable of experiencing this nearness, let alone
understanding it, because all things increasingly present themselves to us as
technological: we see them and treat them as what Heidegger calls a “standing
reserve,” supplies in a storeroom, as it were, pieces of inventory to be ordered and
conscripted, assembled and disassembled, set up and set aside. Everything
approaches us merely as a source of energy or as something we must organize. We
treat even human capabilities as though they were only means for technological

8 Physical Science Department

 procedures, as when a worker becomes nothing but an instrument for production.
Leaders and planners, along with the rest of us, are mere human resources to be
arranged, rearranged, and disposed of. Each and every thing that presents itself
technologically thereby loses its distinctive independence and form. We push aside,
obscure, or simply cannot see, other possibilities.

Common attempts to rectify this situation don’t solve the problem and instead
are part of it. We tend to believe that technology is a means to our ends and a
human activity under our control. But in truth we now conceive of means, ends, and
ourselves as fungible and manipulable. Control and direction are technological
control and direction. Our attempts to master technology still remain within its walls,
reinforcing them. As Heidegger says in the third of his Bremen lectures, “all this
opining concerning technology” — the common critique of technology that
denounces its harmful effects, as well as the belief that technology is nothing but a
blessing, and especially the view that technology is a neutral tool to be wielded
either for good or evil — all of this only shows “how the dominance of the essence of
technology orders into its plundering even and especially the human conceptions
concerning technology.” This is because “with all these conceptions and valuations
one is from the outset unwittingly in agreement that technology would be a means
to an end.” This “instrumental” view of technology is correct, but it “does not show
us technology’s essence.” It is correct because it sees something pertinent about
technology, but it is essentially misleading and not true because it does not see how
technology is a way that all entities, not merely machines and technical processes,
now present themselves.

Of course, were there no way out of technological thinking, Heidegger’s own

standpoint, however sophisticated, would also be trapped within it. He attempts to
show a way out — a way to think about technology that is not itself beholden to
technology. This leads us into a realm that will be familiar to those acquainted with
Heidegger’s work on “being,” the central issue in Being and Time and one that is also
prominent in some of the Bremen lectures. The basic phenomenon that belongs
together with being is truth, or “revealing,” which is the phenomenon Heidegger
brings forward in his discussion in “The Question Concerning Technology.” Things
can show or reveal themselves to us in different ways, and it is attention to this that
will help us recognize that technology is itself one of these ways, but only one. Other
kinds of revealing, and attention to the realm of truth and being as such, will allow
us to “experience the technological within its own bounds.”

Only then will “another whole realm for the essence of technology ... open
itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth.” Placing ourselves back in
this realm avoids the reduction of things and of ourselves to mere supplies and
reserves. This step, however, does not guarantee that we will fully enter, live within,
or experience this realm. Nor can we predict what technology’s fate or ours will be
once we do experience it. We can at most say that older and more enduring ways of
thought and experience might be reinvigorated and re-inspired. Heidegger believes
his work to be preparatory, illuminating ways of being and of being human that are
not merely technological.

One way by which Heidegger believes he can enter this realm is by attending
to the original meaning of crucial words and the phenomena they reveal. Original
language — words that precede explicit philosophical, technological, and scientific
thought and sometimes survive in colloquial speech — often shows what is true more

9 Physical Science Department

 tellingly than modern speech does. (Some poets are for Heidegger better guides on
the quest for truth than professional philosophers.) The two decisive languages,
Heidegger thinks, are Greek and German; Greek because our philosophical heritage
derives its terms from it (often in distorted form), and German, because its words
can often be traced to an origin undistorted by philosophical reflection or by Latin
interpretations of the Greek. (Some critics believe that Heidegger’s reliance on what
they think are fanciful etymologies warps his understanding.)

Much more worrisome, however, is that Heidegger’s thought, while promising

a comprehensive view of the essence of technology, by virtue of its inclusiveness
threatens to blur distinctions that are central to human concerns. Moreover, his
emphasis on technology’s broad and uncanny scope ignores or occludes the
importance and possibility of ethical and political choice. This twofold problem is
most evident in the best-known passage from the second Bremen lecture:
“Agriculture is now a mechanized food industry, in essence the same as the
production of corpses in the gas chambers and extermination camps, the same as
the blockading and starving of countries, the same as the production of hydrogen
bombs.” From what standpoint could mechanized agriculture and the Nazis’
extermination camps be “in essence the same”? If there is such a standpoint, should
it not be ignored or at least modified because it overlooks or trivializes the most
significant matters of choice, in this case the ability to detect and deal with grave
injustice? Whatever the full and subtle meaning of “in essence the same” is,
Heidegger fails to address the difference in ethical weight between the two
phenomena he compares, or to show a path for just political choice. While Heidegger
purports to attend to concrete, ordinary experience, he does not consider seriously
justice and injustice as fundamental aspects of this experience. Instead, Heidegger
claims that what is “horrifying” is not any of technology’s particular harmful effects
but “what transposes ... all that is out of its previous essence” — that is to say, what
is dangerous is that technology displaces beings from what they originally were,
hindering our ability to experience them truly.

10 Physical Science Department

 TECHNOLOGY AS POEISIS

The very concepts of thinking (noein) and poetry (poiesis) to which

Heidegger refers in this lecture are themselves un-Platonic. To be precise: they are
pre-Platonic. Turning to the Pre- Socratic thinkers– in this case Parmenides and
Heraclitus– Heidegger retrieves a notion of philosophical thinking supposedly more
original than that of the tradition beginning with Plato and Aristotle, for whom
thinking was adapted to the model of seeing.

Heidegger furthermore retrieves in Sophoclean tragedy a concept of techne,

or the 'know-how' corresponding to the activity of poiesis (Herstellen/Fabrication),
that is more original than the Platonic-Aristotelian interpretation of this concept
understood as a form of mimesis. By way of synthesis, Heidegger then tries to
demonstrate the original kinship between the notions of poiesis and noein as they
were originally conceived but which, with Plato and Aristotle, become no longer
accessible.

Let us now follow Heidegger’s understanding of technology more exactingly,

relying on the Bremen lectures and “The Question Concerning Technology,” and
beginning with four points of Heidegger’s critique (some of which we have already
touched on).

First, the essence of technology is not something we make; it is a mode of

being, or of revealing. This means that technological things have their own novel
kind of presence, endurance, and connections among parts and wholes. They have
their own way of presenting themselves and the world in which they operate. The
essence of technology is, for Heidegger, not the best or most characteristic instance
of technology, nor is it a nebulous generality, a form or idea. Rather, to consider
technology essentially is to see it as an event to which we belong: the structuring,
ordering, and “requisitioning” of everything around us, and of ourselves.
The second point is that technology even holds sway over beings that we do
not normally think of as technological, such as gods and history. Third, the essence
of technology as Heidegger discusses it is primarily a matter of modern and industrial
technology. He is less concerned with the ancient and old tools and techniques that
antedate modernity; the essence of technology is revealed in factories and industrial
processes, not in hammers and plows. And fourth, for Heidegger, technology is not
simply the practical application of natural science. Instead, modern natural science
can understand nature in the characteristically scientific manner only because nature
has already, in advance, come to light as a set of calculable, orderable forces — that
is to say, technologically.

Some concrete examples from Heidegger’s writings will help us develop these
themes. When Heidegger says that technology reveals things to us as “standing
reserve,” he means that everything is imposed upon or “challenged” to be an orderly
resource for technical application, which in turn we take as a resource for further
use, and so on interminably. For example, we challenge land to yield coal, treating
the land as nothing but a coal reserve. The coal is then stored, “on call, ready to
deliver the sun’s warmth that is stored in it,” which is then “challenged forth for heat,
which in turn is ordered to deliver steam whose pressure turns the wheels that keep
a factory running.” The factories are themselves challenged to produce tools
“through which once again machines are set to work and maintained.”

11 Physical Science Department

 The passive voice in this account indicates that these acts occur not primarily
by our own doing; we belong to the activity. Technological conscriptions of things
occur in a sense prior to our actual technical use of them, because things must be
(and be seen as) already available resources in order for them to be used in this
fashion. This availability makes planning for technical ends possible; it is the heart of
what in the Sixties and Seventies was called the inescapable “system.” But these
technical ends are never ends in themselves: “A success is that type of consequence
that itself remains assigned to the yielding of further consequences.” This chain does
not move toward anything that has its own presence, but, instead, “only enters into
its circuit,” and is “regulating and securing” natural resources and energies in this
never-ending fashion.

Technology also replaces the familiar connection of parts to wholes;

everything is just an exchangeable piece. For example, while a deer or a tree or a
wine jug may “stand on its own” and have its own presence, an automobile does
not: it is challenged “for a further conducting along, which itself sets in place the
promotion of commerce.” Machines and other pieces of inventory are not parts of
self-standing wholes, but arrive piece by piece. These pieces do share themselves
with others in a sort of unity, but they are isolated, “shattered,” and confined to a
“circuit of orderability.” The isolated pieces, moreover, are uniform and
exchangeable. We can replace one piece of standing reserve with another. By
contrast, “My hand ... is not a piece of me. I myself am entirely in each gesture of
the hand, every single time.”

Human beings too are now exchangeable pieces. A forester “is today
positioned by the lumber industry. Whether he knows it or not, he is in his own way
a piece of inventory in the cellulose stock” delivered to newspapers and magazines.
These in turn, as Heidegger puts it in “The Question Concerning Technology,” “set
public opinion to swallowing what is printed, so that a set configuration of opinion
becomes available on demand.” Similarly, radio and its employees belong to the
standing reserve of the public sphere; everything in the public sphere is ordered “for
anyone and everyone without distinction.” Even the radio listener, whom we are
nowadays accustomed to thinking of as a free consumer of mass media — after all,
he “is entirely free to turn the device on and off” — is actually still confined in the
technological system of producing public opinion. “Indeed, he is only free in the
sense that each time he must free himself from the coercive insistence of the public
sphere that nevertheless ineluctably persists.”

But the essence of technology does not just affect things and people. It
“attacks everything that is: Nature and history, humans, and divinities.” When
theologians on occasion cite the beauty of atomic physics or the subtleties of
quantum mechanics as evidence for the existence of God, they have, Heidegger
says, placed God “into the realm of the orderable.” God becomes technologized.
(Heidegger’s word for the essence of technology is Gestell. While the translator of
the Bremen lectures, Andrew Mitchell, renders it as “positionality,” William Lovitt, the
translator of “The Question Concerning Technology” in 1977 chose the term
“enframing.” It almost goes without saying that neither term can bring out all the
nuances that Heidegger has in mind.)
The heart of the matter for Heidegger is thus not in any particular machine, process,
or resource, but rather in the “challenging”: the way the essence of technology
operates on our understanding of all matters and on the presence of those matters
themselves — the all-pervasive way we confront (and are confronted by) the

12 Physical Science Department

 technological world. Everything encountered technologically is exploited for some
technical use. It is important to note, as suggested earlier, that when Heidegger
speaks of technology’s essence in terms of challenging or positionality, he speaks of
modern technology, and excludes traditional arts and tools that we might in some
sense consider technological. For instance, the people who cross the Rhine by
walking over a simple bridge might also seem to be using the bridge to challenge the
river, making it a piece in an endless chain of use. But Heidegger argues that the
bridge in fact allows the river to be itself, to stand within its own flow and form. By
contrast, a hydroelectric plant and its dams and structures transform the river into
just one more element in an energy-producing sequence. Similarly, the traditional
activities of peasants do not “challenge the farmland.” Rather, they protect the
crops, leaving them “to the discretion of the growing forces,” whereas “agriculture is
now a mechanized food industry.”

Modern machines are therefore not merely more developed, or self-propelled,

versions of old tools such as water or spinning wheels. Technology’s essence “has
already from the outset abolished all those places where the spinning wheel and
water mill previously stood.” Heidegger is not concerned with the elusive question of
precisely dating the origin of modern technology, a question that some think
important in order to understand it. But he does claim that well before the rise of
industrial mechanization in the eighteenth century, technology’s essence was already
in place. “It first of all lit up the region within which the invention of something like
power-producing machines could at all be sought out and attempted.” We cannot
capture the essence of technology by describing the makeup of a machine, for
“every construction of every machine already moves within the essential space of
technology.”

Even if the essence of technology does not originate in the rise of

mechanization, can we at least show how it follows from the way we apprehend
nature? After all, Heidegger says, the essence of technology “begins its reign” when
modern natural science is born in the early seventeenth century. But in fact we
cannot show this because in Heidegger’s view the relationship between science and
technology is the reverse of how we usually think it to be; natural forces and
materials belong to technology, rather than the other way around. It was
technological thinking that first understood nature in such a way that nature could be
challenged to unlock its forces and energy. The challenge preceded the unlocking;
the essence of technology is thus prior to natural science. “Modern technology is not
applied natural science, far more is modern natural science the application of the
essence of technology.” Nature is therefore “the fundamental piece of inventory of
the technological standing reserve — and nothing else.”
Given this view of technology, it follows that any scientific account obscures the
essential being of many things, including their nearness. So when Heidegger
discusses technology and nearness, he assures us that he is not simply repeating the
cliché that technology makes the world smaller. “What is decisive,” he writes, “is not
that the distances are diminishing with the help of technology, but rather that
nearness remains outstanding.” In order to experience nearness, we must encounter
things in their truth. And no matter how much we believe that science will let us
“encounter the actual in its actuality,” science only offers us representations of
things. It “only ever encounters that which its manner of representation has
previously admitted as a possible object for itself.”

13 Physical Science Department

 An example from the second lecture illustrates what Heidegger means.
Scientifically speaking, the distance between a house and the tree in front of it can
be measured neutrally: it is thirty feet. But in our everyday lives, that distance is not
as neutral, not as abstract. Instead, the distance is an aspect of our concern with the
tree and the house: the experience of walking, of seeing the tree’s shape grow larger
as I come closer, and of the growing separation from the home as I walk away from
it. In the scientific account, “distance appears to be first achieved in an opposition”
between viewer and object. By becoming indifferent to things as they concern us, by
representing both the distance and the object as simple but useful mathematical
entities or philosophical ideas, we lose our truest experience of nearness and
distance.

QUESTIONING AS THE PIETY OF THOUGHT

In the mind of philosopher, Martin Heidegger, questioning was not anything

without thinking. Thus in his view, a questioner is not a dissenter; rather they are
listening. All questioning, he believed, gets started from initial listening, that which
precedes and guides the questioner. Following this point, Heidegger delves into the
spiritual, the pious, and the holy. His thoughts concerns the piety of thinking itself.

What, Heidegger pondered, does it mean to objectify? He saw this social

phenomenon in regarding living things as objects; objectifying them for use, as a
thing.
What does it mean to think? In his view, thinking in some instances is not
objectifying; it's instead an expression of a being which wills itself to be. For
example, if all thinking were objective, then the creation of art would be
meaningless because it derives from personal thought which 'shows itself' in the
work. Thus it is non-objective. On the other hand, we, by this view, can accept that
thinking about the natural world and the sciences engages in objectivity. Thinking is
"whatever shows itself however it shows itself." It is the opposite of hiding,
concealment.

Heidegger also then concerns himself with the meaning of speaking. What
does it mean to speak? He asks all these deceptively simple questions and arrives at
some startling answers. In speaking Heidegger insists one might use words as a tool
to enforce the manipulation of others by words; one also may use words as humans
do to "open up the world for them, to make a dwelling place in the world."

Finally another question Heidegger poses is that of thinking as a form of

speaking. "Is all thinking a form of speaking and is all speaking a form of thinking?
What does it mean to 'talk to yourself?" And he warns as early as the 1920s that
scientific ways of thinking, objective speaking, threatens to overwhelm all other
imaging in the world today. There are in his mind different needs in speaking and
thinking, a piety of thinking for Heidegger is perhaps 'compliant to the covering and
uncovering of truth.'

ENFRAMING WAY OF REVEALING IN MODERN TECHNOLOGY

Is technology good or calamitous? Do we control the development of

technology or does it control us? It never fails to amaze me how few technology
professionals ever approach these questions. Perhaps it is our desire to avoid

14 Physical Science Department

 cognitive dissonance related to our work. Perhaps it is simple intellectual dishonesty
or cowardice. It could also simply be that criticism of technology is not easy to come
by for us - nowhere in the traditional canon of blogs, books, and papers is an
engagement with these questions easily found. It is for this reason that I'd like to
propose a series of articles in which I'll share the thoughts of influential critics of
technology by outlining their basic arguments in an accessible fashion with some of
my own commentary attached. In the end the judgment is, of course, yours.

Martin Heidegger was the philosopher of Being. His magnum opus, Being and
Time, sought to re-examine what the meaning of the word is is and what human
beings must be like such that questions regarding their own existence are even
possible for them. He was incredibly influential in the 20th century and his thought
inspired existentialism, phenomenology, and deconstruction. His critique of
technology, originally written in 1955, was also quite influential and inspired many
ecological thinkers.

The argument begins from the instrumental definition of technology -

technology is a means to an end - and, after a thorough deconstruction of the
inadequacies of such a definition, works to uncover what is new about modern
technology that makes it so destructive and potentially dangerous.

Heidegger tells us that there are two ways for things to be brought forth into
existence. The first, physis, is through capacities already contained within the entity
itself - the example he gives is a flower bursting into bloom. The second, contained
along with physis in the Greek word poiesis, is through another entity - for example,
a chalice through the craftsman or a painting through the artist. Technology
primarily concerns itself with the latter, and modern technology does so in a
particular fashion that "sets upon nature" and "challenges forth the energies of
nature" [Heidegger]. This challenging and setting upon causes us to order the
entities in our world in such a way that they are always standing ready to be put to
use - for example, the blender is always ready to blend or the airplane on the
runway is always prepared to take off. This challenging relationship with nature also
means that it is no longer viewed ecologically - as something that we have a
symbiotic relationship to - but instead as the "chief storehouse of the standing
energy reserve" to be set upon, unlocked, transformed, stored, distributed, and
redistributed [Heidegger].

Heidegger does not think that we are exercising our free will when we
attempt to go at nature in this way, but instead that a particular mode of revealing
entities and understanding our relationship to them has got hold of us here since
setting upon, unlocking, transforming, storing, distributing, and redistributing are all
different methods of revelation. He calls this mode of revelation Enframing (Ge-stell
in German) as it emphasizes ordering over all else. Enframing represents an extreme
danger. It opens the possibility for humans to forget their own essence as beings
uniquely capable of revealing the world in different ways - as beings capable of
revealing ever new ways of being. More and more it causes humans to see
themselves exclusively as orderers and everything, including themselves, as
orderable.

Despite the bleak outlook on the future of Enframing, Heidegger saw a

"saving power" contained within it as well. That saving power was its potential to
clearly reveal to us our own essence as well as the essence of Enframing, and

15 Physical Science Department

 thereby to avoid our being enslaved to a single mode of revealing. The essay
concludes with his call to the arts to help reveal to humanity in general the insanity
of Enframing and our fundamental essence as human beings.

HUMAN PERSON SWALLOWED BY TECHNOLOGY

A close examination of man’s knowledge and practice of science and

technology shows that none is intrinsically totally good or bad. Rather it is their
applications for the purpose of problem solving that make them either good or bad,
just or unjust in relation to man’s total wellbeing, now and especially, in the future.

In this section let us reflect on some of the problems created for man by his
advances in the physical, chemical and biological sciences and technologies. Before
this, let us look at man’s general attitude towards materialism, which we consider to
be the bedrock of the mad surge in the pursuit of all possible aspects of science and
technology, so named.

It is an accepted fact that today the results of scientific and technological

studies have impacted greatly in almost all the nations of the world. The impact, I
believe, will be more felt in the scientifically and industrially advanced economies of
the world, like Europe and America than in the developing economies, such as the
African nations and other Third World economies. Among the general claims of the
positive contributions of science and technology to man’s life is that of mass
production of material goods, including food and services for man. This is typical of
the industrialized economies where agricultural technology, especially genetic
technology, has made it possible for man to produce more genetically modified seeds
than the immediate food needs of their national population growth. The same
advances have been witnessed in manufacturing nations. In managerial services,
scientific knowledge and technological applications, have also promoted improved
skills, resulting in higher and improved services.

But while it cannot be doubted that science and technology have improved
the levels of material production of goods and services – qualitatively and
quantitatively – for man’s consumption and wellbeing, the advancements in these
fields have infringed greatly upon the dignity of man by institutionalizing materialism.
The explanation is that science and technology in history have tended to elevate and
emphasize only the material aspect of the human life while neglecting his very
personality which is superior and higher and, therefore, demands respect. The result
is that; “the man of the scientific and technological culture becomes a truncated man
– a half-man, even worse than a half-man – a man of the inferior-half-a-matter-man”
(Nwoko, 1992:112).

The contemporary man becomes so lured into believing that all there is, is
nothing over and above matter. Thus for him, the primary goods are material values,
which through technology are elevated and promoted, while the spiritual personality
and value of man become elusive and subordinate to matter. Understood in this
context, human problems are erroneously understood to be essentially material and
therefore must require only material solutions. This may be reduced to the doctrine
of “scientific and technological materialism”, which is propagated jealously,
especially, by the Western capitalist economies within the context of today‟s
globalized economy, which defines the material wealth of any nation in terms of

16 Physical Science Department

 economic growth, while concealing the exploitation and inequity that characterize
participation in global economic race. The explanation is that there is glaring
imbalance and inequity in global economic venture. It is bait thrown, most especially,
to the developing and the Third World economies, described by the purveyors of
global economy, as “those that need economic growth”. Of course, this is still a neo-
colonial strategy by the purveyors of global economy and their governments to
sustain their foreign domination of, especially, African and other Third World nations.
The whole venture of global economy boils down, in this perspective, to economic
dishonesty exhibited by the political and economic world “super-powers” over the
developing economies with the hidden view of subjugation which is basically an
infringement of human right at the international arena. It would be false to believe
that Europe and America are ignorant of the negative chain effects of such a
violation. Rather, they are blinded by their uncritical pursuit of materialism. In such a
circumstance, the crucial question is: where does the hope of the economically
disadvantaged nations lie in globalized economy, which indeed, has also greatly
affected global politics and decision making?

The problems of man as a consumer of scientific and technological products

in relationship to his destiny as a “person” can be interpreted not only as the
question of morality of “right appetite” but also as that of “human right”, which
Nwoko (1992) has tried to link to his notion of “right reason” of man, to the extent
that a genuine and right human choice is to be judged from the standpoint of its
conformity with “right appetite” (144). Understood from this perspective, a good
human choice should be determined by how much, a person’s choice corresponds to
his human rationality – a choice guided by the dictates of critical thinking or reason.

Regrettably, the modern man, in his pursuit of scientific and technological

progress does not seem to be guided, most of the time, by the dictates of reason.
The result is that he, most of the time, commits errors and is even, sometimes in a
dilemma in choosing what to produce as well as what to consume. Thus, if man, the
consumer of scientific and technological products, must focus on his rational end in
life, then he must be prudential in making choices. He must cultivate the “virtue of
prudence” described as “the virtue that ensures that man will easily select the right
means in order to perform acts that will lead to his end as man” (Grindel, 1964:194).

The simple inference is that the grip of materialism, and hence, of

consumerism assumes a negative sway in the individual person when his or her
desires are not guided by right reason in his application and use of scientific
knowledge and technological goods and services towards the realization of his or her
ultimate end. Thus unless humans cultivate only the right appetite, the uncritical
urge for materialism, promoted by science and technology, will continue to cloud
their mind, creating a barrier for the full realization of their rational ends. In order to
make the best out of his world, man must therefore, be dispassionate in his pursuits
of materialism because his nature and needs, as humans, go beyond the demands of
materialism. This is so because humans are credited with “right appetite” only when
their desires for material goods and services are in conformity with their rational
nature. This is why Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, said, “man know thy
self”.

17 Physical Science Department

 ART AS A WAY OUT OF ENFRAMING

This sub-lesson made use of the article entitled: ART vs Design: Saving
power vs enframing, or A Thing of the Past vs World-Making by Mark Titmarsh and
Cameron Tonkinwise. This lesson will present the first of the dialogue only, please
read the rest of the information on the above stated article.

The paper is a dialogue—or, a slice of ongoing dialogue; a kind of fight in

progress—between the authors.
Some background material:
1. Mark is a practicing artist. Cameron is a design theorist. Mark is
committed to the significance of art, Cameron to the significance of
design.
2. Mark and Cameron were, for a long time, colleagues in a design school.
Design is a relatively recent profession and not yet a discipline. Design
schools tend to be either the technical, commercial embarrassments of art
colleges, or the soft, aesthetic embarrassments of technology institutes.
Because of its precarious emergent status, design has a defensive enmity
with art.
3. What brings Mark and Cameron together, and puts them in dispute, is
Heidegger and post- Heideggerian thinking. Both Mark and Cameron find
in Heidegger a relational post-aesthetics of “making think-work”1 that
clarifies and furthers their attempts to respond to the dominion of
technological metaphysics. It is just that Mark believes that this
‘remembering-clearing’ lies on the art side of the art/technology divide
whereas Cameron believes that it lies on the technology side.

The following dialogue is a vehicle for us to propose some of the ideas that
we are working on. For Mark, this is making expanded paintings, for Cameron,
making engaging things. Apart from the pragmatic institutional issues hinted at
above, what is at stake in our debate? Perhaps everything; that is to say, if you
believe Heidegger, at stake is the future of human beings in the face of technology’s
cessation of history.

The issue that always troubles readers of Heidegger on technology is: if the
essence of technology is its totalising nature, how are we to respond? If all causal
reactions to technology remain technological, what is to be done?

We begin with the assumption that Heidegger is misinterpreted when cast as

an apologist for acquiescence, a quasi-spiritual giving in to, or waiting for the end of,
techno-being. For example, when Heidegger risks this sort of rhetoric around the
term Gelassenheit, such ‘releasement’ requires much effort—one must be active in
becoming passive. Less extreme, but more common, is Heidegger’s valorisation of
thinking itself as a response to techno-being, in particular, the sort of thinking
associated with questioning. As is often noted, the opening line of his essay “The
Question Concerning Technology” italicises the verb ‘questioning’: “In what follows
we shall be questioning concerning technology. Questioning builds the way”
(Heidegger 1977, 3). And the essay concludes, The closer we come to the danger,
the more brightly do the ways into the saving power begin to shine and the more
questioning we become. For questioning is the piety of thought. (Heidegger 1977,
35) However, on these occasions, Heidegger’s concern is still for a thinking that is ‘in
action’. Such questioning is not a removed, inactive contemplation, but rather an

18 Physical Science Department

 engaged responsiveness. It is, as we will argue, very much with and of the process
of making. This is precisely Heidegger’s point; he aims to retrieve a form of making—
of thoughtful making, of making thoughtful—that is no longer merely technological.
He does not deny the activism of technology, but finds within it more authentic
forms of revelatory action. This is why the closing sentences from “The Question
Concerning Technology” previously cited occur in the context of a discussion of art.

Let us cite this passage at length, because it is the concern of the following
debate: Because the essence of technology is nothing technological, essential
reflection upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must happen in a realm
that is, on the one hand, akin to the essence of technology and, on the other,
fundamentally different from it. Such a realm is art. But certainly only if reflection on
art, for its part, does not shift its eyes to the constellation of truth after which we are
questioning. Thus questioning, we bear witness to thecrisis that in our sheer
preoccupation with technology we do not yet experience the coming to presence of
technology, that in our sheer aesthetic-mindedness we no longer guard and preserve
the coming to presence of art. Yet the more questioningly we ponder the essence of
technology, the more mysterious the essence of art becomes. (Heidegger 1977, 35)

The appropriate response to technology is therefore not just philosophising,

but thinking in and around the making of that which we call art. According to
Heidegger’s analysis, such making think-work appears to be a non-technological way
of negotiating technology. To return to our debate, we, the authors, are interested in
how literally Heidegger should be read here. Does ‘art’ mean Art, works for the
institution of art, or the arts of Design, products for the economy of design? Which of
these is less unthinking in its making, which is more thoughtful or thought
provoking? Moreover, which is the more appropriate action in response to
technology, which is nearer the potential for swaying the way of the world and
therefore more able to accomplish a turn in our experience of being?

What is at issue in this debate between Mark (hereafter M) and Cameron

(hereafter C) over Heidegger—for this paper, and for the debate about practice-
based research in which it is taking place—is the role and nature of making
Heidegger is calling for a considered analysis of the artefactual outcome, the finished
artwork or design product, or is it a critical reflection on the process of making? If
the outcome is an artwork for interpretative reception rather than a design for
enactive use, how does this affect the question worthiness of the process of making?
For, surely, if the process of making is a type of research, a way of discovering
knowledge, then it is thoughtful in a way that ignorant technology dangerously is
not. Such research-ly making reveals exactly what technology conceals. To work out
how making is a bringing-to-knowledge identifies not just why there should be a
validation of practice-based research but also, in the context of Heidegger, identifies
a non-technological form of making. This is why we are fighting over which form of
making—art or design—is the most significant, as research, and as the saving power
within the eclipsing empire of technology.

C: What is most common in Heidegger’s range of articulations of what is to

be done is the constellation of techne, poiesis, physis, and aletheia. The
essence of technology derives from its origin in the ancient Greek sense of
techne, the know-how associated with poiesis, which Heidegger believes is a
mode of revealing, aletheia, compatible with the model for revelation, physis.

19 Physical Science Department

 This is, in some ways, the first half of “The Question Concerning
Technology”; poiesis is the four ways of occasioning . . . [that] let what is not yet
present arrive into presencing . . . It is of utmost importance that we think bringing-
forth in its full scope and at the same time in the sense in which the Greeks thought
it . . . Physis also, the arising of something from out of itself, is a bringing forth,
poiesis. Physis is indeed poiesis in the highest sense . . . The Greeks have the word
aletheia for revealing . . . Techne is a mode of aletheueuin . . . Technology is a mode
of revealing . . . And yet the revealing that holds sway throughout modern
technology does not unfold into a bringing-forth in the sense of poiesis. The
revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging. (Heidegger 1977, 10–14)

20 Physical Science Department

 Apply your Knowledge

Now, let’s check what you have learned.

Try to imagine the world without technology. How do you think your day-to-
day life would be like? Do this by illustrating a scenario where a certain technological
innovation does not exist. Below are the examples you could use:
1. Watch 4. Cars
2. Phone 5. Printing press
3. Light bulbs 6. Electricity
Your illustration will be rated using the rubric:

GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ILLUSTRATION RUBRIC

Criteria Excellent Good Average Limited Poor
10 pts 9 pts 8 pts 7 pts 6 pts
Composit Shows strong Shows internal Shows obvious Image is Visual
ion & internal integrity integrity of the weaknesses in sloppy - there integrity is
Design of the visual visual the integrity of is very little nonexistent
elements. elements. A the visual integrity of the and image is
Nothing needs to visual element elements. visual sloppy. All of
be added or needs to be Many visual elements. Most the visual
removed - added or elements need visual elements elements
finished piece is removed. to be added, need to be need to be
superb. moved or rethought. rethought.
removed. Needs a
complete
overhaul.
Creativity The student The student The student The student The student
demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates shows little
superior good use of average use of some use of evidence of
creativity and creativity and creativity and creativity and creativity or
originality in the originality in originality in originality. originality in
selection of the the selection of the selection of the selection
visual the visual the visual of the visual
components. components. components. components.
Technical Shows mastery in Shows good Shows some Shows limited Shows little or
the use of a command of command of in the use of a no command
photograph and the use of a the use of a photograph of the use of
transforming it photograph photograph and a photograph
into an original and and transforming it and
art piece. transforming it transforming it into an original transforming
into an original into an original art piece. it into an
art piece. art piece. original art
piece.
Effort Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates
above board a good effort some effort in limited effort in little or no
effort in in accomplishing accomplishing effort
accomplishing accomplishing the the accomplishing
the assignment the assignment assignment. assignment. the
going the extra in research assignment.
distance in and time spent
research and to get the
time spent to get assignment
the assignment carried out.
done and on
time.

21 Physical Science Department

 Assess your Knowledge
Reflect on the following questions, then answer the following questions
logically.

1. What would happen to humankind if technology did not exist?

2. Do you agree with Martin Heiddegger in His idea that technology should
only be seen as one of the approaches in perceiving truth? What are the
possible approaches we should consider?

3. Discuss the notion that technology is an instrument to achieve human

goals.

4. Discuss the notion that technology is what humanity does.

22 Physical Science Department

 Answer Key
Let’s check your answers.

Are you satisfied with your score? If you are not

satisfied with the feedback, you may then go back
to some points that you may have missed.

You will now proceed to the next lesson.

23 Physical Science Department

 UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human
Condition

Lesson 2. Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress and

Development (Week 10)

How Much Do You Know?

Let’s check your knowledge relative to the lesson.
TRUE or FALSE. Write the word true if the statement is correct. Write false
if the statement is incorrect.

1. How much are we overshooting our planet's bio-capacity? → more than 50%
each year
2. To reduce consumption: banning advertising, shorter working week and basic
income → How Much is Enough? by Robert and Edward Skidelsky
3. How many hectares should each of us consume annually based on the
resources available in the planet? → Global hectares
4. Growth → the main strategy of eradicating poverty is the same.
5. Is not about giving anything up. And it's certainly not about living a life of
voluntarily 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. → The idea of de-
development
MULTIPLE CHOICE. Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the
statement or answers the question.
1. People in middle and high-income counties believe overconsumption is
putting our plant and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should
strive to buy and own less
A. 70 years B. SDG C. 70% D. 380%
2. The number of people living in poverty on less that $5 a day has increase by-
A. $6000 and 1.9 hectares C. more than 50% each year
B. 1.9 hectares D. more than 1.1 billion
3. 1.8 global hectares
A. Life Expectancy and Happiness
B. The average person in Ghan or Guatemala consumes
C. Human progress
D. 79 years and $53,000
4. The average person in US and CANADA consumes
A. 79 years and $53,000
B. Life Expectancy and Happiness
C. 8 hectares
D. The average person in Ghan or Guatemala consumes
5. The main objective of the sustainable development goals of the United
Nations
A. more than 50% each year
B. Pundits promoting de-developing
C. Eradicate poverty by 2030
D. more than 1.1 billion

24 Physical Science Department

 How well did you do?

How do you feel about the test? Did it make you feel
confident or insecure? Your feelings will be your guide to go slow
or breeze through this module.

Here is the answer key and category to your pre-test.

1. True 6. C
2. True 7. A
3. True 8. B
4. True 9. D
5. False 10. A

A perfect 10 makes you Science Enthusiast. Please

continue to study this module as a review. If you go lower
than 10, studying this module is a must.

7-9 Science Imitator

4-6 Science Aspirant
0-3 Science Hopeful

25 Physical Science Department

 UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human
Condition

Lesson 2. Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress and

Development (Week 10)

Introduction:
If we are fortunate enough to have children, then our desire for them will
probably be that they live happy lives. Happiness is one way of expressing what the
good life means. But happiness on its own does not really express the complexities
of human existence and its fulfilment.

In a global context we might choose, instead, to use the term human

wellbeing; that is commonly measured in terms of statistical approaches to life
expectancy, income and access to goods. This gives some clues as to what might
lead to human fulfilment, and disparities between different peoples, but it is not
really enough. Factual accounts fail to probe the complexity of human relationships
in different societal contexts and why these situations of gross inequality arise. A
rather better term is therefore human flourishing, as this implies a richer, relational
understanding of the human condition. But the possibilities for human flourishing in
our present societies seem dwarfed by difficulties, not only in the developing world,
but also in the developed world.

This alternative voice is one that takes the religious aspect of human
experience seriously, and argues for the incorporation of these values into a concept
of human flourishing. Such an alternative does not simply replace what has gone
before, but seeks to transform it through opening up the underlying assumptions
that have hitherto been accepted. Even those scholars who are not religious are
beginning to recognize that there are philosophical reasons for religions having a
public role in influencing wider society, as long as such religions refrain from
fundamentalism. In the latter case religions need to be held to account for their
negative, rather than positive influence. But the influence of religion can be
channelled so that it is positive, rather than negative. Firstly, religious traditions can
help society discover deformities in its societal relationships. Secondly, religions also
have what might be called a latent positive potential – that they may be able to
inspire not just their own communities, but wider society as a whole.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of lesson the students must have
1. Critiqued human flourishing vis-à-vis the progress of
science and technology
2. Explained Hickel’s paradigm of “development”
3. Differentiated the paradigm from the traditional notions of
growth and consumption

26 Physical Science Department

 Activate your Prior Knowledge
This time relate your prior knowledge to the lesson.

Dr. Jason Hickel, economist and specialist on inequalities, published in 2017

The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. He examines
solutions to reverse the development dynamics and eradicate poverty on a global
scale.
{Copyright ID4D, https://ideas4development.org/en/end-poverty-changing-rules-economy/}

What is your opinion in this tag line:

27 Physical Science Department

 “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. The hard truth is
that this global crisis is due almost entirely to over-
consumption in rich countries. Rich countries must “catch
down” to more appropriate levels of development.”
--Jason Hickel--

Dr. Jason Hickel is an economic anthropologist, author,

and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He is a Senior
Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London. He serves on
the Statistical Advisory Panel for the UN Human
Development Report 2020, the advisory board of the Green
New Deal for Europe, and on the Harvard-Lancet Commission
on Reparations and Redistributive Justice.

What are the Sustainable Development Goals?

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals,
were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action
to end poverty, protect the planet and
ensure that all people enjoy peace and
prosperity by 2030. The 17 SDGs are
integrated—that is, they recognize that
action in one area will affect outcomes in

others, and that development must balance

social, economic and environmental
sustainability.

28 Physical Science Department

 Through the pledge to Leave No One Behind, countries have committed to fast-
track progress for those furthest behind first. That is why the SDGs are designed to
bring the world to several life-changing ‘zeros’, including zero poverty, hunger, AIDS
and discrimination against women and girls. Everyone is needed to reach these
ambitious targets. The creativity, knowhow, technology and financial resources from
all of society is necessary to achieve the SDGs in every context.

What is UNDP's role?

As the lead UN development agency, UNDP is well-placed to help implement

the Goals through our work in some 170 countries and territories. We support
countries in achieving the SDGs through integrated solutions. Today’s complex
challenges—from stemming the spread of disease to preventing conflict—cannot be
tackled neatly in isolation. For UNDP, this means focusing on systems, root causes
and connections between challenges—not just thematic sectors—to build solutions
that respond to people’s daily realities.

Our track record working across the Goals provides us with a valuable
experience and proven policy expertise to ensure we all reach the targets set out in
the SDGs by 2030. But we cannot do this alone.Achieving the SDGs requires the
partnership of governments, private sector, civil society and citizens alike to make
sure we leave a better planet for future generations.

Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich

countries
--Jason Hickel--

This week, 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.

29 Physical Science Department

 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 standardised 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.

30 Physical Science Department

 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 organising
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.

31 Physical Science Department

 Apply your Knowledge
Now, let’s check what you have learned.

Reflect on the following questions, then answer the following questions logically.

1. Why must we change our paradigm of growth and consumption to that of

“de-development”?

2. Why are the terms de-development, de-growth, and zero growth seemingly
unacceptable to the usual framework of human progress?

3. How have we been enframed by the notion of growth?

4. How do we improve our lives and yet reduce consumption?

32 Physical Science Department

 Assess your Knowledge
Identification. Identify what is described.

1. Country that manages to sustain the highest happiness indicators and life
expectancies and a per capita income of one-fourth that of the US ($13,250)

2. The threshold of the Earth for adequately sustaining life

3. According to the majority of people in middle-and high-income countries, it

puts the planet and society at risk.

4. Growth has been the main objective of development for how many years?

5. The standard response to eradicating poverty

Matching questions. Match column A to corresponding idea in column B.

COLUMN A COLUMN B

1. "catch-down" A. Growth
2. The main strategy of eradicating poverty B. To reduce consumption:
is the same banning advertising, shorter
working week and basic
income
3. more than 1.1 billion C. The number of people living in
poverty on less that $5 a day
has increased by-
4. more than 50% each year D. How much are we
overshooting our planet’s bio-
capacity?
5. How Much is Enough? by Robert and E. According to Hickel, what
Edward Skidelsky must be done instead of
urging poor countries to
“catch-up” with rich ones?

33 Physical Science Department

 Answer Key
Let’s check your answers.
Identification.

Are you satisfied with your score? If you are not

satisfied with the feedback, you may then go back to some
points that you may have missed.

You will now proceed to the next lesson.

34 Physical Science Department

 UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human
Condition

Lesson 3. The Good Life (Week 10)

Introduction:

The achievement of happiness, according to Aristotle, is the end goal of every

man. His reasoning is thus: All human activities are done in order to attain
something that is good. We don’t do something because we think it will be bad for
us. In addition, most of these
activities are not the main objective,
but rather a means to a higher end.
Consequently, the activity that is an
end in itself, writes the prolific
philosopher, is the highest good, and
that good is happiness. We aim at
happiness for its own sake, not
because it will achieve something
else. Happiness, therefore, is our
greatest mission.

Aristotle advocates a life with

as much contemplation as possible.
This is because doing good things
will make good people happy and
rational thought is the highest good.
The practical sciences, therefore,
should be pursued. They will enable
us in finding the right path in life, as
well as help with the practical issues
that consume our time and attention.
Essentially, go to a park… but remember to take a book.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this lesson the students must have,

1. explained the concept of the good life as posited by
Aristotle
2. defined the good life in their own words
3. examined shared concerns that make up the good life to
come up with innovative and creative solutions to
contemporary issues guided by ethical standards

35 Physical Science Department

 Activate your Prior Knowledge
This time relate your prior knowledge to the lesson.

The images below showed a few statements uttered by Aristotle. Explain in your own
understanding what each statement means.

36 Physical Science Department

 Acquire New Knowledge
This part will present the ideas aligned with the objectives of the lesson.

Nicomachean Ethics and Modern Concepts

Aristotle’s views on living well begin with a consideration of ends and means.
Suppose I want a car—the car is my end or goal. I can earn, borrow, or steal the
money to get the car—these are my means. The means I choose depends on which
is easier, quicker, likelier to succeed, etc. Thinking about the goal we are aiming at,
and the means we will employ to reach that goal is practical thinking. But such
thinking bears no fruit until it results in purposeful action, which is acting with some
end, goal, or purpose in mind. Purposeful action contrasts with aimless or
thoughtless action, which is action with no end in view.

Now suppose I get my car? That is itself a means to another end, say of
getting to school or work. And of course, getting to school or work is the means to
another end, getting to class or a job. And these are the means of making money,
which is itself a means of buying food, clothing, and shelter, which are the means of
staying alive. Such considerations led Aristotle to wonder whether there is
any final or ultimate end, an end for which everything else is a means, an end that is
not a means to anything else. In short, he wanted to know if there is an ultimate
end, goal, or purpose for human life.

Aristotle argued that as we mature, we act less aimlessly and more

purposefully. We try to develop a plan for living that unites all our various purposes.
Without a plan for living, we don’t know what we are trying to do or why we’re trying
to do it. Moreover, not just any plan will do—we need the right plan, which is one

37 Physical Science Department

 that aims at the final or ultimate end. But what is the final end of human life, the end
that all of us ought to aim at?

For Aristotle, the final end of human life is to flourish, to live well, to have a
good life. All actions should aim at this end. Of course, in order to live at all we need
food, clothing, and shelter, but living is itself the means to the end of living well. And
what is living well a means to? Aristotle says that living well is the final end for
humans; it is not a means to anything else. Aristotle thinks this is obvious because
few people want to live poorly.

But now another question arises: don’t different people have different ideas
about what a good life is? For some it may consist of accumulating wealth; for
others, it is having power or being famous or experiencing pleasure. And if people
construe the good life differently, if they have different desires, how can there be
one right plan for living well? How can there be one final end that we all ought to
seek?

To answer these questions Aristotle argued that not all desires are the same.
There are acquired desires, which differ between individuals, and natural desires,
which are the same for everyone. Acquired desires—say for caviar—correspond to
our wants, whereas natural desires—say for food—correspond to our needs.
Acquired desires or wants correspond to apparent goods; things that appear good
because we want them. Natural desires or needs correspond to real goods; things
that are good for us whether we want them or not.

With these considerations in mind, Aristotle states that the good life consists
in the possession, over the course of a lifetime, of all those things that are really
good for us. Moreover, what is really good for any one of us corresponds to the
natural needs that are the same for all of us. Thus what is good for one person is
good for another; in other words, there is a right plan for living well. What are these
real goods that we should all seek to obtain in order to live well? According to
Aristotle, they are:

1) bodily goods – health, vitality, vigor, and pleasure;

2) external goods – food, drink, shelter, clothing, and sleep; and
3) goods of the soul – knowledge, skill, love, friendship, aesthetic enjoyment,
self-esteem, and honor.

The first two types of goods are limited goods—we can have more of them
than we need. Goods of the soul are unlimited goods—we cannot have more of them
than we need. But surely the knowledge of the good life isn’t sufficient to actually
living a good life? I may know, for example, that drinking alcohol is bad for me but
do it anyway. So how do we learn to desire these real goods?

Aristotle argued that the way to bridge the gap between knowledge of the
good life and actually living it was through the development of a good moral
character. And this entails developing good habits. A good habit allows us to perform
certain actions without effort. We can have a good habit of playing the piano,
studying hard, hitting golf balls, or thinking well. We can also habitually make good
choices to avoid overeating or drinking too much.

38 Physical Science Department

 Aristotle calls good habits virtues or excellences. Virtues of the mind
are intellectual virtues; while virtues exemplified by a regular disposition to choose
correctly are moral virtues. For Aristotle, wisdom is the most important intellectual
virtue but moral virtue plays a special role in living well. The reason moral virtue—
the habit of making the right choices—is so important is that our choices determine
whether we live well. And if we make too many bad choices we will live poorly.

So we need to develop the good habits or virtues which help us obtain what
is really good for us, as opposed to bad habits or vices which lead us toward things
that merely appear good. Good habits or moral virtues are the principal means to
having good lives because they allow us to habitually make the choices that both
constitute and lead to good lives.

The most important moral virtues or habits are moderation, courage, and
justice. Moderation keeps us from overindulging in pleasure or seeking too much of
the limited goods. Courage is having the disposition to do what it takes to live a good
life, and justice is the virtue that allows us to have friends and enjoy the benefits of
cooperation.

However, both knowledge of the good life and good habits may not be
enough because living well is not completely within our control. Why? First, some
real goods, like wealth or health, are not completely within our power to possess.
And second, we didn’t create the initial conditions of our birth or the environment
into which we were born. Thus moral virtue, while necessary, doesn’t guarantee a
good life. We also need to be fortunate or lucky. If we are wise, virtuous, and
fortunate we will have good, meaningful lives.

The end, goal, purpose (or meaning) of human life is to live well. We do this
by accumulating, over the course of our lives, all the real goods that correspond to
our natural needs; and we increase our chances of having good lives by cultivating
good habits. In addition, we also need good luck.

39 Physical Science Department

 Apply your Knowledge
Now, let’s check what you have learned.

Reflect on the following questions, then answer the following questions logically.

1. What is the good life?

2. What is the relationship between the good life and science?

3. Does technology always lead us to the good life? How and why?

4. How technology did made man’s desire for a happy life more realizable?

5. Explain how technological advancements have made the campaign for the
attainment of good life easier of otherwise.

6. Is the more technologically advanced always better?

40 Physical Science Department

 Assess your Knowledge
Multiple Choice. Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or
answers the question.

1. According to Aristotle, we should begin ethical inquiry by specifying

A. which things are intrinsically valuable.
B. the aim of human life.
C. what our fundamental duties are.
D. what constraints on behavior it would be reasonable to agree to.

2. Aristotle claims that the function of human life is

A. survival and reproduction.
B. service to the gods.
C. rational activity.
D. to pursue pleasure.

3. Aristotle states that if we ask what the highest good of human action is
A. there is no agreement about the answer.
B. most people agree that it is pleasure.
C. nearly everyone agrees that it is happiness.
D. there is no objective answer to this question.

4. Aristotle claims that virtue is

A. necessary and sufficient for a good life.
B. necessary for a good life, but not sufficient for one.
C. sufficient for a good life, but not necessary for one.
D. neither necessary nor sufficient for a good life.

5. According to Aristotle, happiness is

A. a state of mind.
B. a feeling or sensation.
C. a craft.
D. activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.

6. Aristotle conceives of a virtue as

A. a capacity.
B. an ability.
C. an activity.
D. a state of character.

7. In Aristotle's view, the virtues are

A. acquired through habit.
B. acquired through philosophical reflection.
D. a gift from the gods.
D. innate.

41 Physical Science Department

 8. Aristotle describes each virtue as
A. a maximum.
B. a minimum.
C. a mean.
D. an extreme.
9. Aristotle divides the virtues into
A. natural virtues and artificial virtues.
B. moral virtues and intellectual virtues.
C. positive virtues and negative virtues.
D. human virtues and divine virtues.

10. According to Aristotle, the final good is sufficient for a man himself, but also for
A. parents.
B. children.
C. fellow citizens.
D. all of the above.

11. Aristotle specifies happiness by

A. trying to save the appearances.
B. contrasting his account with Plato's.
C. identifying the function of human beings.
D. none of the above.

12. Aristotle claims that we see first principles by

A. induction.
B. perception.
C. habituation.
D. all of the above.

13. To identify the function of human beings, Aristotle dismisses candidates that are
not
A. unique to man.
B. shared by all living beings.
C. already in philosophical currency.
D. all of the above.

14. According to Aristotle, the best kind of life is essentially one of

A. political activity.
B. maximal pleasure.
C. close friendship.
D. contemplation.
15. The final good is that
A. for the sake of which we seek everything else.
B. which is preferred to everything else.
C. which requires nothing else.
D. all of the above.

42 Physical Science Department

 Answer Key
Let’s check your answers.

Multiple Choice.

1. B
2. C
3. C
4. B
5. D
6. D
7. A
8. C
9. B
10. D
11. C
12. D
13. A
14. D
15. D

Are you satisfied with your score? If you are not

satisfied with the feedback, you may then go back to
some points that you may have missed.

You will now proceed to the next lesson.

43 Physical Science Department

 UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the
Human Condition

Lesson 4. When Technology and Humanity Cross

(Weeks 11-12)

How Much Do You Know?

Let’s check your knowledge relative to the lesson.

TRUE or FALSE. Write the word true if the statement is correct. Write
false if the
statement is incorrect.

1. He said "the wasteland grows; woe unto him who harbors the wasteland
within" → Freeman Dyson
2. What replaces manual labor? → machine-like
3. This overcomes people when they see what they can do with their minds →
technical arrogance
4. Chief scientist and corporate executive officer of Sun Microsystems
-he wrote the controversial essay "why the future does not need us" in
2000 → Bill Joy
5. usually designed like human beings are created to perform complex,
repetitive or dangerous tasks → J. Robert Oppenheimer

MULTIPLE CHOICE. Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the
statement or answers the question.

6. He said that as we rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world,

it is our own _______ that flattens into AI
A. Freeman Dyson C. Friedrich Nietzsche
B. J. Robert Oppenheimer D. Nicholar Carr (2008) intelligence

7. with the development of this, robots may also eventually act and decide like
humans
A. we become less intelligent
B. Artificial Intelligence (AI)
C. technical arrogance
D. sophisticated statistical analyses from massive data

44 Physical Science Department

 8. usually designed like human beings are created to perform complex, repititive or
dangerous tasks
A. Friedrich Nietzsche C. Robots
B. J. Robert Oppenheimer D. Freeman Dyson

9. in the possibility that machines adopt the nature of humans, there is a need to
reflect on these, posed by such development
A. Artificial Intelligence (AI) C. technical arrogance
B. business analytics D. ethical problems

10. theoretical physicist and mathematician

A. Nicholar Carr (2008) intelligence C. Friedrich Nietzsche
B. Freeman Dyson D. J. Robert Oppenheimer

45 Physical Science Department

 How well did you do?

How do you feel about the test? Did it make you feel confident
or insecure? Your feelings will be your guide to go slow or breeze through this
module.

Here is the answer key and category to your pre-test.

1. False 6. A
2. False 7. B
3. True 8. D
4. True 9. D
5. False 10. D

A perfect 10 makes you Science Enthusiast. Please

continue to study this module as a review. If you go lower
than 10, studying this module is a must.

7-9 Science Imitator

4-6 Science Aspirant
0-3 Science Hopeful

46 Physical Science Department

 UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human
Condition

Lesson 4. When Technology and Humanity Cross

(Weeks 11-12)

Introduction:
Is technology
influencing humanity or is
humanity influencing
technology? This is a
rhetorical question
proposed by Jay Deragon
in his article, The Influence
of Technology on
Humanity. According to
Joel Garreau, author of
Radical Evolution, the
curve scenario of
technological innovations is
going straight up at
intimidating speed (50-54).

This exponential technological change has “major social, cultural and value
impacts” (Garreau 82) which are influencing and affecting humanity in many ways.
For example, technology is changing the lifestyle of humans as work is becoming
easier to accomplish, and also biotechnology such as enhancements and genetic
modifications are modifying the nature of human beings. However, these innovations
are the creation of human beings. Thus, it can be said that technology is part of
human nature. Hence, Deragon’s question can be answered in the following way;
technology is influencing humanity as it modifies human qualities, while at the same
time, humanity is influencing technology as the development and expansion of
technology is created by humans.

Learning Outcomes
At the of lesson the students must have,
1. Evaluated contemporary human experience to strengthen the
human person functioning in society
2. Discussed the importance of human rights in the face of changing
social conditions and technological development
3. Identified laws or policies in the country that protect the well-being
of the person in technological advancement and ethical dilemmas

47 Physical Science Department

 Activate your Prior Knowledge
This time relate your prior knowledge to the lesson.

Think about these questions:

1. Do people really need technology in their lives? Is it really a necessity?

2. How do you reconcile the ‘need’ for technology and the dilemma/s it faces?

3. Should there be an ethics of technology?

4. Do technological devices bring more good than bad to people?

5. Should there be more budget for technological researches despite the

dilemmas they are currently facing?

6. Should there be limit to technological advancements?

48 Physical Science Department

 Acquire New Knowledge
This part will present the ideas aligned with the objectives of the lesson.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable
rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted
in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of
a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and
freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the
common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have
recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human
rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the
development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the
United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human
rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men
and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of
life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve,
in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common
understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full
realization of this pledge, Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all
peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society,
keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education
to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article I
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit
of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a
personbelongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any
otherlimitation of sovereignty.

49 Physical Science Department

 Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall
be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any
discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to
suchdiscrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or
by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations
and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international
law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than
the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone
has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

50 Physical Science Department

 Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the
borders of each State.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.

Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution.

This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising
from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations.

Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to
change his nationality.

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or
religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal
rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of them
intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled
to protection by society and the State.

Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with
others.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this
right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or
in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.

51 Physical Science Department

 Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly
or through freely chosen representatives.

Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this
will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting
procedures.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is
entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in
accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic,
social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of
his personality.

Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and
favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal
work.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration
ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and
supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of
his interests.

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

52 Physical Science Department

 Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical
care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All
children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the
elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.
Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher
education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality

and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It
shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or
religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the
maintenance of peace.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given
to their children.

Article 27
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the
community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests
resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

53 Physical Science Department

 Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full
development of his personality is possible.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to
such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due
recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic
society.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to

thepurposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State,
group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at
the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

HUMANS VS. ROBOTS

Note: As your enrichment activity of this topics please refer to the

guidelines for Group reporting at the end of this lesson. (p. __)

Almost every day, people of influence claim that machines will soon threaten
the existence of humanity. According to Stephen Hawking, a well-known
cosmologist, "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the
human race," and Elon Musk, a renowned inventor and investor, insists, "I think
human extinction will probably occur, and technology will likely play a part in this."

Several questions come to mind, the biggest one being: Will hostile artificial
intelligence (AI) destroy humanity? However, it is more practical to focus on
questions and answers that demonstrate the effect robotics have on our current
lives.

In order to understand these questions and their possible answers without

attaching scientific labels to the stages of industrial and technological development, I
would like to offer a simple way of looking at things. There have essentially been
three stages of development up to now. The first, putting machines - trucks, ships,
winches - to work; the second, making these machines automatic, as seen in the
industrial production and autopilot in planes, by designing them to follow pre-
calculated and stored patterns; the third, programming these automatic machines to
learn and store new patterns. Through the observatory process in stage three,
robots and machines would be able to cope with unknown or unexpected situations,
such as offering better service for unpredictable consumer behavior or navigating
tricky traffic.

54 Physical Science Department

 Sophia, a robot which is
inspired by Audrey Hepburn's
features, was the first robot to
receive citizenship.

Stage 1 machinery led

to unemployment for a
significant number of workers,
no question about it. However,
these jobs were often either
too strenuous, impossible or
sometimes deadly for humans.
Consider logging, transporting
heavy items or mining. We
should be grateful that these
jobs are now primarily done by
machines since these jobs often proved more dangerous than productive when
performed by people.

However, many more have also lost jobs thanks to stage 2 machines, a
robotic trend with no end in sight. The automatization of office-related tasks, food
production and services along with robotic assembly lines are some examples.
Studies have shown that more than half of all jobs have either already been lost or
will be lost to robots within the next 15 years.

Robots have already defeated us

The value of human labor is decreasing because the cost of automatic

machines is decreasing. This not only affects those who have lost their jobs to
machines, but also those who are still working and getting paid less than their
grandparents did in the 1950s and 1960s.

So, should we worry that stage 3 machines, robots with intelligence, could
deal an even deadlier blow to our well-being? Interestingly, neither Hawking nor
Musk has yet to even bring up the topic. From their comfortable seats - since neither
of them will lose their jobs to an automaton - they talk about a future in which
intelligent robots will find humans completely unnecessary, leading them to dispose
of us all.

The significant difference between stages 2 and three robotics is the

machines' learning capabilities. If we could understand how that works, we could
perhaps fathom what the real, or imagined, future may bring.

Due to the pre-calculated and stored patterns in their memories, stage 2

robots repeatedly perform the same action. For example, the automated machines
peel and cut the carrots exactly the same way, every time. If you give the machine a
smaller or larger carrot, it will be wasted.

On the other hand, stage 3 machines will first have to learn how to cut
different carrots during the learning phase. Some of these learning experiments are
performed in a simulated environment where no actual carrot is used. Each carrot-
cutting experiment is observed, and a score is assigned to its success level. The

55 Physical Science Department

 algorithmic foundations of machine learning have found that thousands of carrot-
cutting experiments would finally configure the computational engine and create a
pretty accurate carrot-cutting robot. However, the learning does not stop here, as
the robot continues to do its work in the field, it continues to learn.

Acting according to the learned patterns creates a strict form of intelligence.

The computer industry has rushed to define it as the intelligence, often implying it is
equal to or even better than human intelligence. Certain examples have been
exaggerated, for example, a chess program running on a supercomputer named
Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov. There is too much commercialism here, and the
essence is lost in the dust. There is absolutely no doubt that learning machines will
make a big difference. For example, it will make safe self-driving cars a reality. This
technology will soon be applied to flying machines too, starting with small delivery
drones.

We, as the theoreticians, have not yet fully understood the capabilities of
machines that can learn. Though this is perfectly clear: A machine that has learned,
stored and used patterns to make decisions is just another form of a programmed
machine. We have absolutely no clue how a machine can act independently, either to
start learning a completely new set of patterns on its own or choosing to jump in the
pattern space from one corner to another. The learning process, on the other hand,
may be highly detrimental to the health of the machine. The machine may
breakdown several times before it can be an effective enemy to humans.

A set of AI robots taking over humanity is far-fetched. Evolution provided a

spectacular opportunity for biological creatures, but this took an extraordinarily long
time, several billion years and several extinctions.

However, AI robots are already taking our jobs, particularly those requiring
simple cognitive and mechanical skills. This trend continues because engineers know
how to make them, and because the captains of the industry worship efficiency and
profit.

56 Physical Science Department

 WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US?

"Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" is an article written by Bill Joy (then Chief
Scientist at Sun Microsystems) in the April 2000 issue of Wired magazine. In the
article, he argues that "Our most powerful 21st-century technologies—robotics,
genetic engineering, and nanotech—are threatening to make humans an endangered
species." Read about a few arguments here.

57 Physical Science Department

58 Physical Science Department
 The rest part of this article will be given to you by your instructor.

Group Reporting as an enrichment activity (Please see the

Supplementary Activity)

59 Physical Science Department

 Apply your Knowledge
Now, let’s check what you have learned.

Choose a unique topic and its perceived effects and the dilemma it entails.
Show your stand on a technological dilemma through a skit. Do not forget to
show the role or role played by the technological advancement in the lives of
the people.

Suggested topics:
1. Robots that are capable if having emotions
2. Google and stupidity

3. Filipino’s addiction to different technologies

4. Waze application

5. Write a reflection paper on the film “Artificial Intelligence” (40 points)

6. Find and examine local government policies that protect the well-
being of the person in the face of new technologies.

Supplementary Activity

Note to Students regarding Group Reporting

Group reporting and group reacting using PowerPoint or video presentations

will enhance student’s twenty-first-century skills. Aside from cognitive skills such as
critical thinking, creativity, and innovation, it will also develop their Interpersonal
skills like communication, collaboration or teamwork, and social skills. The main
objective of this group activity is to showcase students’ literacy skills in tools for
working in this new generation. The literacy skills that we want to highlight are
Information Literacy, Media Literacy, and ICT Literacy. These essential skills will be
tested using this group reporting.
We devised an activity for this module, including the following topic of this module:
Information Society, to put into practice your twenty-first literacy skills.
To maximize the learning of these two topics, a detailed description of how the
group will go about with efficient and effective reporting. The guidelines and rubrics
in Annexes were put into place for everybody in the class. We place a premium on
students’ active involvement in this activity instead of being a passive recipient of
learning. We hope that all members of the group will do their share for the success
of this group reporting.

Activity Proper:
Task 1: Read the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”We must be aware of our
fundamental rights as humans. It will shed light on our argument and discussions
later regarding our assigned reading materials and movies.

60 Physical Science Department

 Task 2: Prepare for Group Reporting and Reaction using the assigned Reading
Materials and Movies below. The designated groups for reporting must choose
between the options given (like an article, book, movie, or documentary). Then
inform the instructor of the given choice so that the reactors group can prepare their
comments, questions, clarifications, and criticisms.
Note: Subject to the modification of instructor depending on the available
resources. Simple and direct reporting maybe utilize if an Internet connection is a
hindrance, and the opportunity to collaborate online is impractical

Part 1 Unit 3 – STS and the Human Condition

7. When Technology and Humanity Cross
Group A Reading Materials, Movies or Books For Discussion
Article The Ethical dilemmas of Robotics Identify laws
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6432307.stm or policies
abroad and in
Movie I, Robot our country
that protects
the well-being
of the person
in
technological
advancement
and ethical
dilemmas
Group B
Article Is Google Making us Stupid? Discuss the
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is- importance of
google-making-us-stupid/306868/ human rights
in the face of
changing social
Movie A.I. conditions and
technological
development.
Group C
Article Why the future does not need us? Do our
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html contemporary
human
experience
synchronizes
with modern
technologies to
strengthen and
enlighten the
human person
functioning in
Society?
Part 2 Unit 4 - Selected Topics in Science,
Technology, and Society
8. Information Society
(Please See next Unit for the continuation of this
Reporting)

61 Physical Science Department

 We recommend that all members of the class must read and watch the above
assignments. But due to some unavoidable circumstances, the teacher, together with
the class, may decide on selected topics only.
Instructions: (For face to face classroom)
1. The class will be divided into ten groups (or eight groups maybe, depending
on the class size. Preferably, there should be 3 to 5 members per group). A
brief description of the roles and functions of each group member is provided
in Annex A.
2. Of the ten groups, five will be assigned as group reporters, and the remaining
five groups will be tasked as reactors by drawing of lots. Please see Annex B
for Guidelines of Group reporting and Annex C for Group reactors.
3. Use Week 10 to plan, organize, and designate tasks to group members. Make
sure that each member reads the assigned topics. Week 11 will be utilized for
group discussion and preparation on how to present/systematically react to
the topic.
4. Week 12 will be used for the presentation of Part 1 assigned topics. Reactions
and interrogation will follow it during Question and Answer (Q & A).
5. Week 13 will be used for the presentation of Part 2 assigned topics. If the
class is too advanced with the tasks, this meeting will be used to present
their Enrichment Activity.
6. Group performance will be assessed using the Rubric in Annex D. Maximum
score per group is 150 points. For the Reporters’ group, their score will come
from Reporting, Reactions, and Answers or Explanation to Questions. And for
the Reactors’ group, it will be due to the accumulation of points from
Reactions, the way they Ask Questions during the interrogation, and
additional information for the topic if needed.

For distance learning type where face to face interaction is not possible, or the class
is assigned or scheduled to remote learning, the teacher may opt for the following:
1. This module will be sent to all students through email or Group Chat
(Messenger). Group meetings, group consultation with the teacher, will
also be through a group chat. The group presentation and reaction to the
topic will be through group Google Meet and Messenger Rooms with at
least 1 or 2 members per group present. The group leaders or members
who attended the Google Meet Presentation and Reaction will update
other members who cannot participate due to internet connection
problems. Other members of the group must be informed about what
transpired during the real-time meeting.
2. Google Classroom, Facebook Social Learning, Edmodo, or Schoology.
Thus, all instructions, including this module, will be uploaded there.
Students can also upload their group outputs, either presentation, and
reaction, on a specified date and time. The class may likewise utilize
Google Meet, Zoom, and Messenger Rooms for real-time meetings on the
presentation of outputs.

See the Annexes at the end of Unit 3 for a detailed description of the group task
performance.
Annex A - Roles and Function of Group Members
Annex B - Guidelines for Group Reporting
Annex C - Guidelines for Reactors Group
Annex D - Rubrics in Reporting, Reacting and Q & A

62 Physical Science Department

 Assess your Knowledge
Multiple Choice. Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or
answers the question.

1. If a robot is not identified as a full teammate, humans may treat it merely as:
A. A friend
B. A tool
C. An agent of full moral capacity
D. An entertainer
E. A toy

2. Joy introduces the term “KMD,” which refers to:

A. Kantian methodology
B. Knowledge-enabled mass destruction
C. Knowledge motivational demands
D. Kapital mehr denken
E. None of the above

3. The dystopias that Joy discusses are possible worlds in which:

A. We no longer have any technology as a result of global disaster.
B. The Internet destroys all distinct human cultures and makes us uniform.
C. We focus on technology and forget to protect the ecosystem.
D. Machines have power over humans or outcompete them.
E. We have no incentive to create technology because of weak property laws.

4. Joy argues that we must find alternative outlets for forces of:
A. Nature
B. Morals
C. Creativity
D. Technology
E. Evil

5. Which of the following describes 'human rights'?

A. The freedoms that all people should have
B. The freedoms that only rich people should have
C. The rights of animals that human should protect
D. The rights of adults only
E. None of the above

63 Physical Science Department

 Answer Key
Let’s check your answers.

Are you satisfied with your score? If you are not satisfied
with the feedback, you may then go back to some points that you
may have missed.

You will now proceed to the next module.

64 Physical Science Department

 References

https://www.coursehero.com/file/44187812/STS-CHAPTER-4-pdf/
https://simplemindzen.blogspot.com/2011/09/questioning-piety-of-thinking.html
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-
sdgs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

https://classicalwisdom.com/philosophy/aristotle/the-goal-of-happiness-a-summary-
of-nicomachean-ethics/

https://www.utwente.nl/en/education/master/programmes/philosophy-science-
technology-society/archive/profiles/technology-the-human-being/#courses
https://sites.google.com/site/humantechnologyandethics/saki koh/essay
-
https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2017/11/02/humans-vs-robots-progress-or-
end-of-humanity
https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780199944200/Student/ch7/Quizzes
/MCQ/
https://www.google.com/search?q=human+flourishing+in+science+and+technology
&tbm=isch&chips=q:human+flourishing+in+science+and+technology,online_chips:h
uman+beings&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwio1Y6NkLrqAhVM7ZQKHeuKDGAQ4lYoCHoECAE
QHg&biw=1519&bih=727#imgrc=CBCaWB9nLlGifM&imgdii=Xd5dhmeYJ3VBtM

https://www.google.com/search?q=human+flourishing+in+science+and+technology
&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi5p_Stj7rqAhUN7ZQKHf3kA6AQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=human+flourishing+in+science+and+technology&gs_lcp=CgNpb
WcQAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgQIABAYMgQIABAYMgQIABAYMgQIABAYM
gQIABAYOgQIABBDUKPpC1j1igxgt40MaABwAHgAgAGFAYgB6BSSAQUxMi4xNJgBAKA
BAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1n&sclient=img&ei=YOEDX7n3J43a0wT9yY-
ACg&bih=727&biw=1536#imgrc=B5QiyQscXnZxNM

65 Physical Science Department

 How Much Have I Learned

Reflect on the following questions, then answer the following questions logically.

1. What do technology reveals?

2. What is modern technology and its role in human flourishing?
3. What is the role of art in a technological world?
4. Differentiate the paradigm from the traditional notions of growth and
Consumption.
5. What is the concept of the good life as posited by Aristotle?
6. Defined the good life in your own words?

7. What is the importance of human rights in the face of changing social

conditions and technological development?

8. What are the laws or policies in the country that protect the well-being of the
person in technological advancement and ethical dilemmas?

66 Physical Science Department

 Annexes for Group Task Performance
Annex A
Roles and Function of Group Members
A. Role:
1. Group Leader
Must be elected by the majority of the group members.
Functions:
a. Facilitates the Group Project and preside during group meetings.
b. Representative and Speaker of the Group
c. Delegate the tasks and Assign Committees to members
d. Supervise and monitor the group project.
e. Assumes the role of each member – especially if that member is
absent during presentation or failed to deliver the tasks during
planning and group work.
f. Report the performance of each member and assess their contribution
to the group project.

2. Assistant Group Leader

Must be appointed by the Group leader.
Functions:
a. Assumes the role of the Group leader if the latter is absent or if he is
not capable of doing the job.
b. Double-check the work of the leader. He or she may signify his
agreement if there is no other better solution or option is available. He
or she may also oppose the decision if the risk is too high, and the
plan is too ambiguous. Rule of thumb, the voice of the majority must
be respected.

3. Group Secretary
Appointed by the Group Leader or volunteered to be in that position.
Functions:
a. Take note of the minutes of the group meeting.
b. Coordinate with the other members of the team for the schedule and
agenda of the meeting.
c. Monitor the attendance of the group members.
4. Member
Responsibilities:
a. Attend meetings regularly and punctually.
b. Offer suggestions and propose solutions.
c. vote to agree or disagree with the suggestions or motions being tackled.

B. Designation or Position during Group Presentation

1. Group Leader
Function/Description
a. Direct or Orchestrate the whole presentation.
b. His/her task during the actual presentation is to introduce the group, group
members. Also, he/she will signal the end of the presentation and
moderate during the Question and answer portion. He/she may answer
some questions if his or her group member asks for support.
c. The rule of thumb is: If the task is delegated to an appropriate or
competent member, the more efficient leader he/she is. The lesser his/her

67 Physical Science Department

 participation in the presentation, proper the responsible he/she is. The role
of the leader is actually the coach or trainer of its members in reporting.
2. Reporter – The asst. Leader or Secretary may assume this role.
Function/Description:
a. Has a good command of the English Language.
b. Has a well-modulated voice.
c. Well versed with the flow and organization of the topic.
d. Has a deeper understanding of the subject.

3. Tech Expert – can be assigned to any member;it is best if it will be assigned to

a vacant member.
Function/Description
a. Good in preparing PowerPoint slides, or movie editing, and anything to do
with the Laptop, internet, and Audio-Visual Equipment. He/she must see to
it that the connectors from P.C. to Multi-media projectors or T.V. monitors
are compatible. Or the files are transferred to the official laptop for a
smooth flow of the presentation.
4. Researcher –can be assigned to any member, best if it will be assigned to a
vacant member.
Function/Description
a. For group Presenters, they will provide support or additional information to
Reporters during Q & A.
b. For group Reactors, they will Prepare the best questions to be posted. They
will see to it that the questions asked will highlight the insufficient
information presented by the Group Presenters. Thus, gaining maximum
points.
c. If they are the 2nd reactors, they will see to it that the questions asked were
not raised already by the first reactors.
Annex B
Guidelines for Group Reporting
Instructions:
1. For ten groups in a class, each group leader will draw lots to determine the
assigned topics. The five topics to be reported includes all the three topics in Part 1
and choose any two topics in Part 2. For eight groups, the same three topics in Part
1 and pickoneitem in Part 2.
2. For those groups whose tasks are reporting, the group leaders will start meeting
with their groupmates and plan for every step of the project. They can start by
getting all the possible resources and information about the topic, designating it to a
competent reporter and its assistants. After all the group members had read the
topic and given their reactions, the group secretary will gather and summarize it. The
following are the suggested or sample line-up for the group.

Role Position and Responsibilities

a. Asst Group Leader Report the Summary of the Article and Explanation to
Assigned Question
b. Secretary Report the Group’s Reaction
c. Member 1 Tech Expert – Gather the Draft PowerPoint slides and
improves it with Pictures, Animations, and Videos.
d. Member 2 Researcher or may assist the Tech Expert
e. Group Leader Manage the team members and monitor their progress.
Facilitate the rehearsal of the presentation for timing and a

68 Physical Science Department

 dry run to determine the possible weaknesses of the
project. Thus, feedbacks from groupmates will benoted.

3. The group will provide 1-page handouts for the class, either printed or soft copy
(recommended). It includes 5 to 10 sentences of the Topic Summary and 5 to 7
sentences of group reactions.
4. The suggested slides for the PowerPoint presentations include:
Slides Description
Slide 1 Title, Author, Course, Topic, Group Name, Year and
Section, Date of Presentation
Slide 2 Group Name, Year and Section, Name of Members and
Roles and Designation.
Slides 3 to 7 of 12 Content: Summary of the Article
Slides ___ (5 to 7 Content: Group Reactions and Explanation to Assigned
slides) questions
Last slide References

69 Physical Science Department

 5. The following sample distribution of reactors to each item is recommended to
cover a broader topic for the class:
Group Topic Assignment
Number
Group 1 Report on the article “The Ethical dilemmas of Robotics.”
Group 2 Report on the article “Is Google Making us Stupid?
Group 3 Report on the article “Why the future does not need us?”
Group 4 Report on the topic “Mathematics as the Language of Nature.”
Group 5 Report on the topic “The World Wide Web.”
Group 6 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 1 and 3
Group 7 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 2 and 4
Group 8 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 3 and 5
Group 9 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 1 and 4
Group 10 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 2 and 5

Time Limit
1. Presentation of Topic, including the Group Reactions, is 6 to 8 minutes.
2. Question and Answer per Reactors are allotted 5 minutes.

Hint for getting a maximum score.

1. By default, the score of the group is also the score of the individual member.
2. For groups who are underperforming, the instructor may investigate the group
members and may give a somewhat higher score to productive members and lower
scores to underperforming members.
3. For groups whose performance is outstanding, the instructor may investigate the
group or the group leader about their best practices.Thus, he may award additional
points to that deserving member/s who gets the job done.

70 Physical Science Department

 Annex C
Guidelines for Reactors Group

Instruction:
1. For ten groups in a class, each group leader will draw lots to determine the
assigned topics. The five topics to be reported includes all the three topics in Part 1
and choose any two topics in Part 2. For eight groups, the same three items in Part 1
and pick one topic in Part 2.

2. After the Reporters group decided on an article, books, documentary film, or

videos, they have to inform their instructor. The selected topic will also be given to
the reactors group to present their group reaction and list their possible questions,
clarification, and/or additional information.

2. The reactor’s group task is to give a reaction, a question, clarification, or

additional information. Their group leaders will start meeting with their groupmates
and plan for every step of the project. They can start by getting all the possible
resources and information about the topic, designating it to a competent presenter
and its assistants. When all the group members had read the topic and given their
reactions, the group secretary will gather and summarize it. The following are the
suggested or sample line up for the group reactions.

Role Position and Responsibilities

a. Asst Group Leader Raise their group question and follow-up questions if
needed. Be prepared to provide additional information if
the issue was not sufficiently answered within 5 minutes.
b. Secretary Report the Group’s Reaction
c. Member 1 Tech Expert – Gather the draft PowerPoint slides and
improves it with Pictures, Animations, and Videos.
d. Member 2 Researcher or may assist the Tech Expert
e. Group Leader Manage the team members and monitor their progress.
Facilitate the rehearsal of the presentation and Q&A for
timing. A dry run of the performance is recommended to
determine the possible weakness of the project. Feedbacks
from group mates must be noted.

3. The group will provide a 1-page handout for the class. It could either be in printed
form or the recommended soft copy (PDF format). It must include 5 to 7 sentences
of the Group Reactions and 3 to 5 questions about the topic.

4. The suggested slides for the PowerPoint presentations include:

Slides Description
Slide 1 Title, Author, Course, Topic, Group Name, Year and
Section, Date of Presentation
Slide 2 Group Name, Year and Section, Name of Members and
Roles and Designation.
Slides 3 to 7 Content: Group Reactions
Slides ___ (3 to 5 Questions (And prepare additional information)
slides)
Last slide References

71 Physical Science Department

 5. The following sample distribution of reactors to each item is recommended to
cover a broader topic for the class:

Group Topic Assignment

Number
Group 1 Report on the article “The Ethical dilemmas of Robotics.”
Group 2 Report on the article “Is Google Making us Stupid?
Group 3 Report on the article “Why the future does not need us?”
Group 4 Report on the topic “Mathematics as the Language of Nature.”
Group 5 Report on the topic “The World Wide Web.”
Group 6 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 1 and 3
Group 7 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 2 and 4
Group 8 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 3 and 5
Group 9 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 1 and 4
Group 10 Reactions and Questions on the topics of Group 2 and 5

Time Limit
1. Presentation of the group and their members together, and the group Reaction is
3 to 4 minutes.
2. Question and answer per topic are allotted 5 minutes.

Hint for getting a maximum score.

1. By default, the score of the group is also the score of the individual member.
2. For groups who are underperforming, the instructor may investigate the group
members and may give a somewhat higher score to productive members and lower
scores to underperforming members.
3. For groups whose performance is outstanding, the instructor may investigate the
group or the group leader about their best practices.Thus, he may award additional
points to that deserving member/s who gets the job done.

4. If the group presenting the topic is well prepared, the Reactors’ Group may ask
the moderator that they are satisfied with the first answer. They might proceed to
ask their next questions if their five-minute time allotment were not yet entirely
consumed. It is to prove that the group diligently did their assignment. If they are
not satisfied with the answer, they may add additional information. The goal here is
to provide new ideas to the discussion.
5. The level of questioning from the lowest to the highest is as follows:
a. Recall of Facts
b. Understanding of Concepts
c. Application (Same Concepts but applied to a different scenario or
circumstance)
d. Analysis
e. Synthesis
f. Evaluation/Creation
The recommended style of questioning would be to start from Recall of facts or
Understanding of concepts and follow it up with Application, Analysis, or Synthesis
type of questions.

72 Physical Science Department

 Annex D
Rubrics in Reporting, Reacting and Q & A

Reporting (50 points)

Criteria P N.I. S VS E Score
1. Logical Flow of Presentation
2. Accuracy of Content
3. Stage Presence and Voice Clarity of the Reporter
4. Interesting Slide Presentation
5. Other Factors: Audience Engagement, Impact,
____________
Total Rating/Score

Reactions/Reflections (50 points for Reporters and 25 points for

Reactors)
Criteria P N.I. S VS E Score
1. Logical Flow of Presentation
2. Accuracy of Reaction
3. Stage Presence and Voice Clarity of the
Presenter
4. Interesting Slide Presentation
5. Other Factors: Audience Engagement, Impact,
____________
Total Rating/Score

Answer and Explanation (25 points)

Criteria P N.I. S VS E Score
1. Logical Flow of Explanation
2. Accuracy of Content
3. Stage Presence and Voice Clarity of the Reporter
4. Interesting Slide Presentation (Additional slides
with Illustrations)
5. Other Factors: Audience Engagement, Impact,
____________
Total Rating/Score

Questions, Clarifications and Additional Information (50)

Criteria P N.I. S VS E Score
1. Clear and Logical Questions
2. Accuracy in Assessing the Answers and Content
of Additional Info
3. Stage Presence and Voice Clarity of the
Interrogator
4. Interesting Slide Presentation (Prepared slides
for Additional info)
5. Other Factors: Audience Engagement, Impact,
____________
Total Rating/Score

73 Physical Science Department

 Description of Rating and its Numerical Equivalent
Rating/Assessment Symbol Description Numerical Example
Equivalent (Perfect
score =
10)
Excellent E Outstanding, Near Perfect, 90 – 9 or 10
Impressive, Exceptional, 100%
Mastery, Consistent
Very Satisfactory VS Above average, Showing 70 – 89 7 or 8
Potential to become %
perfect, much effort was
present. Very minimal
errors.
Satisfactory S Average, Follows 45 – 69 5 or 6
Instruction accurately, but %
no extra diligence was
made. There are errors
but outweighs what is
correct.
Needs N.I. Performs below 20 – 44 3 or 4
Improvement satisfactory. Follows some %
instructions, but the
glaring errors outweigh
the correct procedure.
More effort is needed to
surpass the minimum
expectations.
Poor P No understanding of what 1 to 19 % 1 or 2
is happening. Not capable
of following simple
instructions or procedures.
No effort to consult the
instructor or ask other
groups even if there are
problems.
Not Applicable Blank No data available, maybe 0 0
they did not do the task
nor submit the
presentation.

74 Physical Science Department