MODULE 4

CHAPTER 4: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

Overview
This module introduces students to a number of relevant and timely philosophical foundations that
will aid in examining the functions, roles, and impacts of science and technology on society. The module is
divided into five lessons. These lessons aim to provide students with cogent and comprehensive
knowledge on the concept of human flourishing in the face of rapid scientific progress and technological
development.

LESSON 1: TECHNOLOGY AS A WAY OF REVEALING

This lesson tackles the essence of technology based on Heidegger's work, The Question
Concerning Technology. The topic shall engage in the process of questioning concerning technology. It
discusses the key concepts related to Heidegger's work and how these concepts relate to an understanding
of the essence of technology.

Lesson Objectives

At the end of this section, the students should be able to:

1. Differentiate the essences of technology and modern technology;
2. Discuss and illustrate the dangers of modern technology, and
3. Explain why art is the saving power of modern technology

Motivation/Take-Off
Activity 1
Instructions: Rate the extent of your agreement to the following statements using the Osgood scale. You
are also given space to write any comment to further clarify your response.
Heidegger. Alternatively, it can be accessed in this link: https://www.youtube.com.
Statements Agree Disagree Comments (if any)
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Technology is a means to an end.
Technology is a human activity.
Poetry is technology.
Nature is a standing reserve.
Man is an instrument of the exploitation
of nature.
Man is in danger of being swallowed by
technology.
There is a saving power or a way out of
the danger of technology.
Art may be the saving power.

AT A GLANCE: WHO IS MARTIN HEIDEGGER?

“The essence of technology is by no means anything technological"
-Martin Heidegger (1977

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) is widely acknowledged as one of the most

important philosophers of the 20th century. He was a German philosopher who
was part of the Continental tradition of philosophy. His stern opposition to
positivism and technological world domination received unequivocal
postmodernists and post-structuralists of the time, including Jacques Derrida,
Michel Foucault, and Jean-François Lyotard.

In 1933, he joined the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and remained to be a member

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.iep.
utm.edu%2Fwpcontent%2Fmedia%2FHeidegger3.jpg&imgrefurl=htt until it was dismantled toward the end of World War II. This resulted in his
ps%3A%2F%2Fiep.utm.edu%2Fheidegge%2F&tbnid=e_bwpFRG91
4pSM&vet=1&docid=2pKrGoAMOdnJXM&w=160&h=233&source=s dismissal from the University of Freiburg in 1949. He was only able to resume
h%2Fx%2Fim
teaching in 1951. Heidegger's membership to the Nazi Party made him controversial-his philosophical work
was often eclipsed by his political affiliation, with critics saying that his philosophy would always be rooted
in his political consciousness.

Heidegger's work on philosophy focused on ontology or the study of “being” or dasein in German.
His philosophical works are often described as complicated, partly due to his use of complex compound
German words, such as Seinsvergessenheit (Forgetfulness of Being), Bodenstandigkeit (Rootedness-in-
Soil), and Wesensverfassung (Essential Constitution).

To know more about the life and philosophy of Heidegger, watch a five-minute YouTube video
entitled, The Philosophy of Martin Heiddeger which can be accessed on this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1sGrA7XTU.

The Essence of Technology

It cannot be denied that science and technology are responsible for the ways society is
continuously being modernized. Science and technology continuously seep into the way people go about
their daily lives. However, the omnipresence of science and technology must not eclipse the basic tenets of
ethics and morality. Instead, it should allow the human person to flourish alongside scientific progress a
technological development. In order to spark the discussion on the role of ethics and social morality in
science and technology, it is necessary to go back to the very essence of technology, i.e, its definition.

The essence of technology can be captured in its definition. In his treatise, The Question
Concerning Technology, Martin Heidegger (1977) explains the two widely embraced definitions of
technology (1) instrumental and (2) anthropological.

1. Instrumental definition: “Technology is a means to an end”

Technology is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. In this context, technology is
viewed as a tool available to individuals, groups, and communities that desire to make an impact
on society. How technology is used varies from individual to individual and collective function,
goals, and aspirations.
2. Anthropological definition: “Technology is a human activity,”
Alternatively, technology can also be defined as a human activity because to achieve an
end and to produce and use a means to an end is, by itself, a human activity. The production or
invention of technological equipment, tools and machines, the products and inventions, and the
purpose and functions they serve are what define technology.

Both definitions, i.e., instrumental and anthropological, are correct. However, neither touches on
the true essence of technology.

Technology as a Way of Revealing

Heidegger stressed that the true can only be pursued through the correct. Simply, what is a
correct lead to what is true. In this sense, Heidegger envisioned technology as a way of revealing-a mode
of bringing forth. Bringing forth can be understood through the Ancient Greek philosophical concept,
“poiesis”, which refers to the act of bringing something out of concealment. By bringing something out of
concealment, the truth of that something is revealed. The truth is understood through another Ancient
Greek concept of “aletheia”, which is translated as unclosedness, unconcealedness, disclosure, or truth.

Thus, for Heidegger, technology is a form of poeisis-a way of revealing that unconceals aletheria
or the truth. This is seen in the way the term techne, the Greek root word of technology, is understood in
different contexts. In philosophy, techne resembles the term episteme that refers to the human ability to
make and perform. Techne also encompasses knowledge and understanding. In art, it refers to tangible
and intangible aspects of life. The Greeks understood techne in the way that it encompasses not only craft,
but other acts of the mind, and poetry.

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 2 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
Technology as Poiesis: Does Modern Technology
Bring Forth or Challenge Forth?

Heidegger, in The Question Concerning Technology, posited that both primitive crafts and
modern technology are revealing. However, he explained that modern technology is revealing not in the
sense of bringing forth or poeisis Heidegger made a clear distinction between technology and modern
technology in that the latter 'challenges' nature. Modern technology challenges nature by extracting
something from it and transforming, storing, and distributing it.

On the surface, Heidegger's criticism of modern technology might appear counterintuitive to the
purpose of nature to human existence. However, by digging deeper into Heidegger's question, it becomes
clear that the essence of modern technology is not to bring forth in the sense of poiesis. Instead,
Heidegger considers modern technology's way of revealing as a way of challenging forth. Modern
technology challenges forth, because it makes people think how to do things faster, more effectively, and
with less effort. It prompts people into dominating and enframing the earth's natural resources Challenging
forth reduces objects as standing reserve or something to be disposed of by those who enframe them-
humans. This is evident in the way people exploit natural resources with very little concern for the
ecological consequences that come with it. Challenging forth as a result of modern technology is also
evident in the information age such that greater control of information to profit from its value gives rise to
concerns about privacy and the protection of human rights.

The challenging forth of modern technology is seen everywhere in the rise and depletion of
petroleum as a strategic resource; the introduction and use of synthetic dyes, artificial flavorings, and toxic
materials into the consumer stream that bring about adverse effects an human health; and the use of
ripening agents in agriculture that poses threats to food safety and health security.

Enframing as Modern Technology's

Way of Revealing
If the essence of technology can be understood as a way of bringn forth the truth in the sense of
poiesis, Heidegger distinguished the way of revealing of modern technology by considering it as a process
of enframing. Humankind's desire to control everything, including nature, is captured in this process. By
putting things, in this case nature, in a frame, it becomes much easier for humans to control it according
their desires.
Enframing, according to Heidegger, is akin to two ways of looking at the world: calculative thinking
and meditative thinking, If calculative thinking, humans desire to put an order to nature to better
understand and control it. In meditative thinking, humans allow nature to reveal itself to them without the
use of force or violence. One thinking is not necessarily better than the other. In fact, humans are capable
of using both and will benefit from being able to harmonize these ways of looking at the world. Yet,
calculative thinking tends to be more commonly utilized, primarily because humans' desire to control due to
their fear of irregularity.
Enframing. then, is a way of ordering (or framing) nature to better manipulate it. Enframing
happens because of how humans desire for security, even if it puts all of nature as a standing reserve
ready for exploitation. Modern technology challenges humans to enframe nature. Thus, humans become
part of the standing reserve and an instrument of technology, to be exploited in the ordering of nature. The
role humans take as instruments of technology through enframing is called destining. In destining,
humans are challenged forth by enframing to reveal what is real. However, this destining of humans to
reveal nature carries with it the danger of misconstruction or misinterpretation.

The Dangers of Technology

The dangers of technology lie in how humans let themselves be consumed by it. Although humans
are looped into the cycle of bringing forth or challenging forth, it is their responsibility to recognize how they
become instruments of technology.

The Brazilian novelist, Paulo Coelho, once remarked that it is boastful for humans to think that
nature needs to be saved, whereas Mother Nature would remain even if humans cease to exist. Hence, in
facing the dangers of technology, the fear of disappearing from the face of the Earth should concern people
more potently than the fear of the Earth disappearing. As mere tenants on Earth, people must not allow
themselves to be consumed by technology lest they lose the essence of who they are as human beings. In

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 3 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
this sense, humans are in danger of becoming merely part of the standing reserve or, alternatively, may
find themselves in nature.

Recognizing its dangers of technology requires critical and reflective thinking on its use. For
example, social media has indeed connected people in the most efficient and convenient way imaginable,
but it also inadvertently gave rise to issues such as invasion of privacy, online disinhibition, and proliferation
of fake news. The line has to be drawn between what constitutes a beneficial use of social media and a
dangerous one. As exemplified, social media comes with both benefits and drawbacks.

However, the real threat of technology comes from its essence, not its activities or products. The
correct response to the danger of technology is not simply dismissing technology altogether. Heidegger
(1977) explained that people are delivered over to technology in the worst possible way when they regard it
as something neutral. This conception of technology, according to Heidegger, to which today humans
particularly like to pay homage, makes them utterly blind to the essence of technology. Ultimately, the
essence of technology is by no means anything technological (Heidegger, 1977).

Art as the Saving Power

Necessary reflection upon and confrontation with technology are required in order to proactively
address the dangers of technology. Friedrich Hölderlin, a German poet quoted by Heidegger, said: "But
where danger is, grows the saving power also" (1977, p. 14). Following this, the saving power can be
traced exactly where the danger is-in the essence of technology. As mentioned, this essence is not neutral
and by no means anything technological. Along this line, Heidegger proposed art as the saving power and
the way out of enframing: "And art was simply called techne. It was a single, manifold revealing" (1977, p.
18). Heidegger saw art as an act of the mind, i.e., a techne, that protected and had great power over the
truth. By focusing on art, people are able to see more clearly how art is embedded in nature. Art
encourages humans to think less from a calculative standpoint where nature 1s viewed as an ordered
system. Instead, it inspires meditative thinking where nature is seen as an art and that, in all of art, nature is
most poetic Heidegger encapsulated this as follows:
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 shut its eyes to the
constellation of truth after which we are questioning (1977, p. 19).

Questioning as the Piety of Thought

Heidegger concluded his treatise on technology by saying:

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 (1977, p. 19).

Heidegger underscored the importance of questioning in the midst of technology. For him, there is
unparalleled wisdom gained only when humans are able to pause, think, and question what is around them.
Humans are consumed by technology when they are caught up in enframing and fail to pay attention to the
intricacies of technology, the brilliance of the purpose of humankind, and the genius of humans to bring
forth the truth.

Questioning is the piety of thought. It is only through questioning that humans are able to reassess
their position not only in the midst of technology around them, but also, and most importantly, in the grand
scheme of things. Heidegger posited that it is through questioning that humans bear witness to the crises
that a complete preoccupation with technology brings, preventing them from experiencing the essence of
technology

Thus, humans need to take a step back and reassess who they were, who they are, and who they
are becoming in the midst of technology in this day and age.

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 4 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
ACTIVITY 1: THE DANGERS OF TECHNOLOGY

Instructions: Read the article below. After reading, work with a partner and answer the questions that
follow. Write your answers on a separate sheet of paper.

Facebook says 87 million may be affected

by data privacy scandal
by Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON DC, USA - Facebook said Wednesday, April 4, the personal data of up to 87
million users was improperly shared with British political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, as Mark
Zuckerberg defended his leadership at the huge social network.

Facebook's estimate was far higher than news reports suggesting 50 million users may have been
affected in the privacy scandal which has roiled the company and sparked questions for the entire internet
sector on data protection.

Zuckerberg told reporters on a conference call he accepted responsibility for the failure to protect
user data but maintained that he was still the best person to lead the network of two billion users.

"I think life is about learning from the mistakes and figuring out how to move forward," he said in
response to a question on his ability to lead the company.

"When you're building something like Facebook which is unprecedented in the world, there are
things that you're going to mess up... What I think people should hold us accountable for is if we are
learning from our mistakes." Zuckerberg said 87 million was a high estimate of those affected by the
breach, based on the maximum number of connections to Users who downloaded an academic
researcher's quiz that scooped up personal profiles.

I'm quite confident it will not be more than 87 million, it could well be less," he said.
To remedy the problem, Zackerberg said Facebook must "rethink our relationship with people
across everything we do" and that it will take a number of years to regain user trust.

The new estimate came as Facebook unveiled clearer terms of service to enable users to better
understand data sharing and as a congressional panel said Zuckerberg would aPpear next week to
address privacy issues. Facebook has been scrambling for weeks in the face of the disclosures on
hijacking of private data by the consulting group working for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

The British firm responded to the Facebook announcement by repeating its claim that it did not use
data from the social etwork in the 2016 election.

Cambridge Analytica did not use GSR (Global Science Research Facebook data or any derivatives
of this data in the US presidential election," the company said in a tweet. "Cambridge Analytica licensed
data from GSR for 30 million individuals, not 87 million.

Zuckerberg on the Hill

Facebook's chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer meanwhile said new privacy tools for users of
the huge social network would be in place by next Monday, April 9.

"People will also be able to remove apps that they no longer want. As part of this process we will
also tell people if their information may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica," he said in
a statement.

Schroepfer's post was the first to cite the figure of 87 million while noting that most of those
affected were in the United States.

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 5 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 Facebook also said its new terms of service would provide clearer information on how data is
collected and shared without giving the social network additional rights.

Earlier Wednesday, the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee announced
what appeared to be the first congressional appearance by Zuckerberg since the scandal broke.

The April 11 hearing will "be an important opportunity to shed light on critical consumer data
privacy issues and help all Americans better understand what happens to their personal information online,
said the committee's Republican chairman Greg Walden and ranking Democrat Frank Pallone in a
statement

The Facebook co-founder is also invited to other hearings amid a broad probe on both sides of the
Atlantic.

Deleting Russian 'trolls

Zauckerberg told the conference call he was committed to ensuring that Facebook and its partners
do a better job of protecting user data, and that it must take a more serious approach after years of being
idealistic" about how the platform is used.

"We didn't take a broad enough view on what our responsibility is, and that was a huge mistake. It
was my mistake.

He said that while "there are billions of people who love the service, there is also a potential for
abuse and manipulation.

"It's not enough just to give people a voice," he said. "We have to make sure people don't use that
voice to hurt people or spread disinformation."

Late Tuesday, April 3, Facebook said it deleted dozens of accounts linked to a Russian-sponsored
internet unit which has been accused of spreading propaganda and other divisive content in the United
States and elsewhere.
The social networking giant said it revoked the accounts of 70 Facebook and 65 Instagram
accounts, and removed 138 Facebook pages controlled by the Russia-based Internet Research Agency
(IRA). The agency has been called a "troll farm" due to its deceptive post aimed at sowing discord and
propagating misinformation.

The unit "has repeatedly used complex networks of inauthentic accounts to deceive and
manipulate people who use Facebook, including before, during and after the 2016 US presidential
elections," Said a statement Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos Rappler.com

Source: Agence France-Presse. (2018, April 5). Facebook says 87 million may be affected by data privacy
scandal. Rappler. Retrieved on April 24, 2018 from
https://www.rappler.com/technology/news/199588tacebook-data-affected-cambridgeanalytica-scandal

Questions:

1. What is this data privacy scandal all about?

2. How does this Facebook privacy scandal relate to Heidegger's notion of revealing of modern
technology as challenging forth?
3. How are Facebook users 'enframed' in this particular data privacy Scandal?
4. How do you think Facebook can be used in a way that is more consistent with Heidegger's idea of
poiesis or a bringing forth of technology?
5. How can the Heideggerian notion of 'questioning' guide Facebook users toward a beneficial use of
social media?

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 6 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 LESSON 2: HUMAN FLOURISHING IN PROGRESS AND DE-DEVELOPMENT

Overview

This lesson presents Jason Hickel's development framework focused on de-development. As a

departure from traditional frameworks of growth and development, Hickel's concept of de-development is
discussed as an alternative to narrowing the gap between rich and poor countries. Thus, taking off from this
alternative framework, the section critiques human flourishing vis-á vis progress in science and technology.

Lesson Objectives
At the end of this unit, the students should be able to:
1. Discuss human flourishing in the context of progress in science and technology:
2. Explain de-development as a progress and development framework; and
3. Differentiate between traditional frameworks of progress and development and Hickel's
concept of de-development.

Motivation / Take-Off:
Activity 1
Instructions: Examine the picture and follow the prompt that follows:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.bworldonline.com%2Fwp-
content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2FManufacturing-factory-worker-
070518.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.bworldonline.com%2Ffactory-output-growth-eases-but-remains-
robustinmay%2F&tbnid=BZbXjsZJcsZnlM&vet=1&docid=GKwVV7BejVAx9M&w=1024&h=600&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim

Recent researches found that 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe that
overconsumption is putting the planet and society at risk. Form groups with three members each and
discuss your thoughts about the following:
1. How do you think overconsumption puts the planet and society at risk?
2. What are the manifestations of society's tendency to overproduce and overconsume?
3. Should middle- and high-income countries regulate their growth and consumption? Why or why
not?

Thoughts to Ponder

Despite efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor countries, a BBC report in 2015
stated that the gap in growth and development just keeps on widening. Although there is no standard
measure of inequality, the report claimed that most indicators suggest that the widening of the growth gap
slowed during the financial crisis of 2007 but is now growing again. The increasing inequality appears
paradoxical having in mind the efforts that had been poured onto the development programs designed to
assist poor countries to rise from absent to slow progress.

With this backdrop and in the context of unprecedented scientific and technological advancement
and economic development, humans must ask themselves whether they are indeed flourishing, individually
or collectively. If development efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor countries have failed,
is it possible to confront the challenges of development through a nonconformist framework?

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 7 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 In the succeeding article, Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics,
criticizes the failure of growth and development efforts to eradicating poverty seven decades ago. More
importantly, he offers a nonconformist perspective toward growth and development.

Forget 'developing' poor countries,

It’s time to 'de-develop rich countries
by 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 380o, but the number of people living in poverty on
less than $5 (C3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That's 17 times the population of Britain.
So much for the trickle-down elfect.

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 biocapacity by more than 50% each year.

In other words, growth isn't an option any more-we've already grown too much. Scientists are now
telling us that we're blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth is that this
global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries.

Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 "global hectares"
annually -a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This hgure is roughly what the
average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people n the US and Canada consume
about 8 hectares per person, while opeans 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 yield 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.

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 8 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 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 westernes. Tricky, but not impossible, According to recent consumer
research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our
planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should strive to buy and own less, and that
doing so would not compromise our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with the dominant
model of economic progress and they are hungry for an alternative narrative.

The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language.
They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or - worst of all-de-development, which are technically
accurate but off putting for anyone who's not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run
against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. t's
like asking people to stop moving positively through 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 stuft, 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
mposing 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.

Source: Hickel, (2015, Sep 23). Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to de develop' rich countries.
The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardiancom/global-
developmentprofessionalsnetwork/2015/sep/23/developing-poorcountries-de-developrich-countries-sdgs.

Activity 2: READING COMPREHENSION CHECK

Instructions: After reading Hickel’s article on the concept of de-development, answer the following
questions in two to three sentences.

1. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about?

2. How is the de-development framework different from traditional frameworks of development?
3. According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop?
4. Why does Hickel frown upon pundits using terms such as de- growth, zero growth, or de-
development in describing an alternative framework?
5. Some people might think that de-development is about giving things up. How does Hickel explain
that this is not the case?

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 9 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 LESSON 3: THE GOOD LIFE

Overview
This lesson introduces concepts from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and examines issues in
contemporary science and technology using the same philosophical lens. It tackles the important
Aristotelian concepts of endaimonia and arete, and how these can be used to assess one's relationship
and dealings with science and technology. As such, the lesson also aims to answer the question, "Are we
living the good life?”

Lesson Objectives
At the end of this section, the students should be able to:
1. Define the idea of the good life;
2. Discuss Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia and arète; and
3. Examine contemporary issues and come up with innovative and creative solutions to
contemporary issues guided by ethical standards leading to a good life.

Are we living the good life? This question is inarguably one universal human concern. Everyone
aims to lead a good life. Yet, what constitutes a happy and contented life varies from person to person.
Unique backgrounds, experiences, social contexts, and even preferences make it difficult to subscribe to a
unified standard on which to tease out the meaning of the good life. Thus, the prospect of a standard of the
good life-one that resonates across unique human experiences-is inviting

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and the Good Life

To answer the question, "Are we living the good life?," necessary reflection must be made on two
things: first, what standard could be used to define "the good life?" Second, how can the standard serve as
a guide toward living the good life in the midst of scientific progress and technological advancement?

In the documentary film, The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, C. S.
Lewis posited that "science must be guided by some ethical basis that is not dictated by science itself." One
such ethical basis is Aristotle's Nichamachean Ethics.

Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC, is probably the most important ancient Greek philosopher
and scientist. He was a student of Plato, who was then a student of Socrates. Together, they were
considered the 'Big Three of Greek Philosophy, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, the fundamental basis o
Aristotelian ethics, consists of ten books. Originally, they were lecture notes written on scrolls when he
taught at the Lyceum. It is widely believed that the lecture notes were compiled by or were dedicated one of
Aristotle's sons, Nichomacus. Alternatively, it is believed that the work was dedicated to Aristotle's father
who was of the same name.

The Nichomachean Ethics, abbreviated as NE or sometimes EN based on the Latin vesion of the
name, is a treatise on the natured moral life and human happiness based on the unique essence of human
nature. The NE is particularly useful in defining what the good life is.
Everyone has a definition of what good is-getting a college degree, traveling acrOss the world,
succeeding in a business venture, pursuing a healthy and active lifestyle, or being a responsible parent.
However, although everyone aims to achieve that which is good, Aristotle posited two types of good. In NE
Book 2 Chapter 2, NE 2:2), Aristotle explained that every action aims at some good. However, some
actions aim at an instrumental good while some aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the ultimate
good is better than the instrumental good for the latter is good as a means to achieving something else or
some other end while the learner is good in itself.

Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good

What then is the ultimate good? Based on the contrast between two types of good, one could
reflect on some potential candidates for the ultimate good.

One might think that pleasure is the ultimate good. One aims for pleasure in the food they eat or in
the experiences they immerse themselves into. Yet, while pleasure is an important human need, it cannot
be the ultimate good. First, it is transitory-it passes. One may have been pleased with the food they had for

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 10 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
lunch, but he or she will be hungry again or will want something else alter a while. Second, pleasure does
not encompass all aspects of life. One may be pleased with an opportunity to travel but that may not make
him or her feel go0d about leaving, say, his or her studies or he relationship he or she has been struggling
with.

Others might think that wealth is a potential candidate for the ultimate good, but a critique of
wealth would prove otherwise. Indeed, many, if not most, aim to be financially stable, to be rich, or to be
able to afford a luxurious life. However, it is very common to hear people say that they aim to be wealthy
insofar as it would help them achieve some other goals. Elsewhere, it is also common to hear stories about
people who have become very wealthy but remain, by and large, unhappy with the lives they lead. In this
sense, wealth is just an intermediate good-that is, only instrumental. It is not the ultimate good because it is
not self-sufficient and does not stop one from aiming for some other 'greater good.

Another candidate for the ultimate good is fame and honor. Many people today seem to be
motivated by a desire to be known-to be famous. Others strive for honor and recognition. This is reflected
by those people who use social media to acquire large virtual following on the internet and wish to gain a
foothold on the benefits that fame brings. Many people act according to how they think they will be admired
and appreciated by other people. However, these cannot constitute the ultimate good, simply because they
are based on the perception of others. Fame and honor can never be good in themselves. If one's definition
of the good life is being popular or respected, then the good life becomes ełusive since it is based on the
subjective views of others.

Unlike pleasure, wealth, fame, and honor, happiness is the ultimate good. In the Aristotelian sense,
happiness is "living well and doing well" (NE 1:4). Among the Greeks, this is known as eudaimonia, from
the root words eu, meaning good, and daimon, meaning spirit. Combining the root words, cudaimonia
means happiness or welfare. More accurately, others translate it as human flourishing or prosperity
Aristotle proposed two hallmarks of eudaimonia, namely virtue and excellence (NE 1:7). Thus, happiness in
the sense of eudaimonia has to be distinguished from merely living good. Eudaimonia transcends all
aspects of life for it is about living well and doing well in whatever one does.

Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?

Eudaimonia or happiness is unique to humans for it is a uniquely human function. It is achieved
only through a rationally directed life. Aristotle's notion of a tripartite soul as summarized in Table 1
illustrates a nested hierarchy of the functions and activities of the soul. The degrees and functions of the
soul are nested, such that the one which has a higher degree of soul has all of the lower degrees. Thus, on
the nutritive degree, all living things, i.e., plants, animals, and humans, require nourishment and have the
ability to reproduce. On the sensitive degree, only animals and humans have the ability to move and
perceive. Finally, on the rational degree, only humans are capable of theoretical and practical functions.
Following this, humans possess the nutritive, sensitive, and rational degrees of the soul. More importantly,
only humans are capable of a life guided by reason. Because this is so, happiness, too, is a uniquely
human function for it only be achieved through a rationally directed life.

HUMANS ANIMALS PLANTS

Rational Sensitive Rational

(rational) (partially rational) (non-rational)

Theoretical Locomotion Growth Nutrition

Practical Perception Reproduction

Figure 1. Aristotle’s Tripartite Soul

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 11 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
Arête and Human Happiness
Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For Aristotle,
eudaimonia is only possible by living a life of virtue.

Arête, a Greek term, is defined as "excellence of any kind" and can also mean "moral virtue." A
virtue is what makes one function well Aristotle suggested two types of virtue: intellectual virtue and moral
virtue.

Intellectual virtue or virtue of thought is achieved through education, time, and experience. Key
intellectual virtues are wisdom, which guides ethical behavior, and understanding, which is gained from
scientific endeavors and contemplation. Wisdom and understanding achieved through formal and non-
formal means. Intellectual virtues are acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills as much those
knowledge and skills taught and learned in formal institutions.

Moral virtue or virtue of character is achieved through habitual practice. Some key moral values are
generosity, temperance, and courage. Aristotle explained that although the capacity for intellectual virtue is
innate, it is brought into contemplation only by practice. It is by repeatedly being unselfish that one
develops the virtue of generosity. It is repeatedly resisting and foregoing every inviting opportunity one
develops the virtue of temperance. It is by repeatedly exhibiting the proper action and emotional response
in the face of danger that one develops the virtue of courage. By and large, moral virtue is like a skill. A skill
is acquired only through repeated practice. Everyone is capable of learning how to play the guitar because
everyone has an innate capacity for intellectual virtue, but not everyone acquires it because only those who
devote time and practice develop the skill of playing the instrument.

If one learns that eating to0 much fatty foods is bad for the health, he or she has to make it a habit
to stay away from this type of food because health contributes to living well and doing well. If one believes
that too much use of social media is detrimental to human relationships and productivity, he or she must
regulate his or her use of social media and deliberately spend more time with friends, and family, and work
than in virtual platform. If one understands the enormous damage to the environment that plastic materials
bring, he or she must repeatedly forego the next plastic item he or she could do away with. Good
relationship dynamics and a healthy environment contribute to one's wellness, in how he or she lives and
what he or she does.

Both intellectual virtue and moral virtue should be in accordance with reason to achieve
eudaimonia. Indifference with these virtues, for reasons that are only for one's convenience, pleasure, or
satisfaction, leads humans away from eudaimonia.

A virtue is ruined by any excess and deficiency in how one lives and acts. A balance between two
extremes is a requisite of virtue. This balance is a mean of excess not in the sense of a geometric or
arithmetic average. Instead, it is a mean relative to the person, circumstances, and the right emotional
response in every experience (NE2:2; 2:6).

Consider the virtue of courage. Courage was earlier defined as displaying the right action and
emotional response in the face of danger. The virtue of courage is ruined by an excess of the needed
emotional and proper action to address a particular situation. A person who does not properly assess the
danger and is totally without fear may develop the vice of foolhardiness or rashness. Also, courage is
ruined by a deficiency of the needed emotion and proper action. When one overthinks of a looming danger,
that he or she becomes too fearful and incapable of acting on the problem, he or she develops the vice of
cowardice.

What then is the good life?

Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of eudaimonia is the state of being
happy, healthy, and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives, and acts. The path to the good life consists of
the virtues of thought and character, which are relative mediators between the two extremes of excess and
deficiency. In this way, the good life is understood as happiness brought about by living a virtuous life.

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 12 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving toward further progress
and development in science and technology. In appraising the goodness of the next medical procedure, the
new social media trend, the latest mobile device, or the upcoming technology for food safety, one must be
guided by Aristotelian virtues. Science and technology can be ruined by under- or over-appreciation of the
scope and function it plays in the pursuit of the uniquely human experience of happiness. Refusing science
and technology altogether to improve human life is as problematic as allowing it to entirely dictate reason
and action without any regard for ethical and moral standards. By imposing on science and technology an
ethical standard that is not dictated by itself, as C. S. Lewis proposed, not only will scientific advancement
and technological development flourish, but also the human person.

ACTIVITY 2: CASE STUDY

Instructions:
This time, you will be working the case study by group. (please be reminded that you are not
allowed to go out in order to meet your group mates. Make use of your available resources in order
to materialize this activity. Your Health is our major concern so always follow the health protocols
and advisories)
Since we are geographically isolated, you may opt to choose your classmate that is within your nearby
barangays to form at least 5 members in a group. You are going to conduct a simple survey on the case of
sugar consumption. You may either hold brief interviews (take note: if possible do not conduct this in a face
to face basis, always observe health protocol, do not violate our course policy as to the health prioritization)
or use survey questionnaires to gather data for your case study. Your data gathering may focus on but is
not limited to the following:
1. Extent of overconsumption of sugar
2. Awareness of hidden sugar content on food items
3. Food items that contain hidden sugars
4. Agreement or disagreement on the need to regulate the production and consumption of sugar
5. Awareness on the impact of the overconsumption of sugar-based products on the pursuit of human
happiness
After gathering data, analyze and present your data following the guidelines below. Overall, your case
study report should not be more than 10 pages.

CASE STUDY REPORT FORMAT GUIDELINES

1. Cover Page - includes the title, names of group members, and submission date
2. Introduction - discusses briefly the context and background of the case study (You might need to
present existing data on the consumption and production of sugar locally and internationally,)
3. Body - covers the following sub-items
a. Key issues or Problem -explicitly presents the focus of the data gathering (e-g, low
awareness level, huge daily consumption rate, common sugary food items, the need to
regulate production and consumption of sugar, impact of Overconsumption on the pursuit
of happiness)
b. Assumptions-clarifies the group members' assumptions about the current situation in
relation to the problem analyzed.
c. Data Analysis - presents excerpts of interviews, graphs, statistical summaries of data
d. Proposed Alternative - makes explicit the group members' concrete recommendations
about how to face the dangers of current state of sugar production and consumption
e. Impact of Proposal on the Pursuit of Happiness - explains the impact of the group's
proposed alternative on the journey of humans toward living the good life (In what way/s
can your proposal lead humans closer to eudaimonia?)
4. Conclusion presents a concise summary of the case study and contains no more than five
sentences directly answering the problem explained in the body
5. References lists all print and online materials that were used in writing the case study report
(Follow the guidelines of APA 6th Edition Reference and Citation Manual found in
https://owlenglish.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/24/)

Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt.

Spacing: 1.5 spacing
Margins: 1 inch on all sides
Page Numbers: top right on every page

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 13 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 LESSON 4: WHEN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITY CROSS

Overview
Human rights in the face of scientific and technological advancement are critical factors in one's
journey toward eudimonia the good life. Exercising the right to accept or reject, minimize or maximize, and
evaluate and decide on the scope and function of science and technology indicates human flourishing in
science and technology. Protecting the well-being and upholding the dignity of the human person must be
at the core of continued scientific and technological progress and development. Such is the focus of a
human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development.

Lesson Objectives
At the end of the lesson the students are expected to:
1. Evaluate contemporary human experience to strengthen the human person functioning
in society;
2. Discuss the importance of human rights in the face of changing social conditions and
technological development; and
3. Identify laws or policies in the country that protect the well-being of the person in
technological advancement and ethical dilemmas.
Motivation / Take-Off
Instructions: Rate the extent of your agreement to each statement by ticking (/) the box that corresponds
to your response in each row.
Statements Extremely Somewhat To a Somewhat Extremely
Agree Agree limited Disagree Disagree
Extent
Human rights are fundamental rights.
Responding to urgent global
challenges allows setting aside some
human rights.
It is not the duty of scientist and
innovators to protect the well-being
and dignity of humans.
Human rights should be at the core of
any scientific and technological
endeavor.
A good life is a life where human rights
are upheld.
Human rights should be integral in the
journey toward the ultimate good.
It is not the primary function of science
and technology to protect the weak,
poor, and vulnerable.
There is no way for science and
technology to fully function as a
safeguard of human rights.
A human rights-based approach to
science, technology, and development
is imperative.
The protection of human rights and
continued scientific and technological
advancement can work hand-in-hand.

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 14 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
Lesson Proper
S. Romi Mukherjee, a senior lecturer in Political Theory and the History of Religions at the Paris
Institute of Political Studies, explained a human rights-based approach to science, technology, and
development as follows:
"[It] seeks to place a concern for human rights at the heart of how the international community
engages with urgent global challenges. The UN Development Programme characterizes this
approach as one that leads to better and more sustainable outcomes by analyzing and addressing
the inequalities, discriminatory practices and unjust power relations which are often at the heart of
development problems. It puts the international human rights entitlements and claims of the people
(the 'right-holders') and the corresponding obligations of the state (the 'duty-bearer) in the center of
the national development debate, and it clarifies the purpose of capacity development."
Mukherjee (2012) furthered that this approach identifies science as a “socially organized human
activity which is value-laden and shaped by organizational structures and procedures." Moreover, it
requires an answer to whether governments and other stakeholders can craft and implement science and
technology policies that "ensure safety, health and livelihoods; include people's needs and priorities in
development and environmental strategies; and ensure they participate in decision making that affects their
lives and resources.”

Multiple international statutes, declarations, and decrees have been produced to ensure well-being
and human dignity. Mukherjee listed some of the most important documents that center on a human rights-
based approach to science, development, and technology, and their key principles:

Table 2.4: Useful documents for a human-rights based approach to science, technology, and
development
Document Key Principles
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article This document affirms everyone's right to participate
27) in and benefit from scientific advances, and be
protected from scientific misuses. The right to the
benefits of science comes under the domain of
'culture,' so it is Usually examined from a cultural
rights perspective
UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of This document affirms that all advances in scientific
Scientific Researchers – 1974 (Article 4) and technological knowledge should solely be
geared towards the welfare of the on the status of
global citizens, and calls upon member states to
develop necessary protocol and policies to monitor
and secure this objective. Countries are asked to
show that science and technology are integrated
into policies that aim to ensure a more humane and
just society.
UNESCO Declaration on the Use of Scientific This document states, "Today, more than ever,
Knowledge – 1999 (Article 33) science and its applications are indispensable for
development. All levels of government and the
private sector should provide enhanced support for
building up an adequate and evenly distributed
scientific and technological capacity through
appropriate education and research programs as
an indispensable foundation for economic, social,
cultural and environmentally sound development.
This is particularly urgent for developing countries."
This Declaration encompasses issues such as
pollution-free production, efficient resource use,
biodiversity protection, and brain drains.
A human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development sets the parameters for
the appraisal of how science, technology, and development promote human well-being. Thus, the
discussion of human rights in the face of changing scientific and technological contexts must not serve as
merely decorative moral dimension of scientific and technological policies. As Mukherjee (2012) posited,
this approach "can form the very heart of sustainable futures."

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 15 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 Human rights should be integral to the journey toward the ultimate good. They should guide
humans not only to flourish as individual members of society, but also to assist each other in flourishing
collectively as a society. Human rights are rights to sustainability, as Mukherjee put it. They may function as
the 'golden mean, particularly by protecting the weak, poor, and vulnerable from the deficiencies and
excesses of science and technology. By imposing upon science and technology the moral and ethical duty
to protect and uphold human rights, there can be a more effective and sustainable approach to bridging the
gap between poor and rich countries on both tangible (e.g, services and natural resources) and intangible
(e-g, well-being and human dignity) aspects. Ultimately, all these will lead humans to flourish together
through science and technology.

Exercise 1: READING COMPREHENSION CHECK

Instructions:
Answer the following questions in your own words based on your understanding of Mukherjee's human
rights-based approach to science, technology, and development. Limit your responses to three or four
sentences only.
1. What is a human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development?
2. How do the documents and their key principles presented in Table 2 position human rights in the
intersection of technology and humanity?
3. Why should human rights be at the core of scientific and technological advancement?
4. What is the danger of using human rights as merely decorative moral dimension of scientific and
technological policies?
5. Do you agree with Mukherjee's assertion that human rights based approach to science,
technology, and development can form the very heart of sustainable futures? Explain.

Exercise 2: READING ENRICHMENT TASK

Instructions:
Choose and read one of the two reading materials and answer the enrichment questions that follow:
1. Evans, D. (2007, March 9). The ethical dilemmas of robotics BBC Neues. Retrieved from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6432307.stm
a. What are the ethical dilemmas posed by robotics?
b. Which among the instruments for a human rights-based approach to science, technology,
and development discussed in this section may be useful in contending with the ethical
dilemmas of robotics?
c. How can the instrument inform lawyers and ethicists and engineers and scientists in
answering the moral and legal questions raised by the developments in robotics?
2. Carr, N. (2008 July). Is Google making us stupid? What the Internet is doing to our brains.The
Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-
makingusstupid/306868/
a. Do you agree that Google is making humans stupid? Why or why not?
b. What moral and ethical duty must be imposed upon the duty-bearer, in this case Google, in
protecting the well-being and dignity of humans?
c. What responsibilities do the 'right-holders, in this case Google users, carry in ensuring a
human rights-based approach to the use of the internet?

LESSON 5: WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US

Overview
This section tackles the danger posed by science and technology unchecked by moral and ethical
standards. It primarily draws insights from William Nelson Joy's (2000) article, Why the future doesn't need
US, 1n evaluating contemporary human experience in the midst of rapid developments in science and
technology. Such experience will be discussed to see whether it strengthens and enlightens the human
person functioning in society or not.

Objectives
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Identify William Nelson Joy's arguments as to why the future does not need us

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 16 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
 2. Evaluate contemporary human experiences with science and technology; and
3. Write an essay that emphasizes the importance of humankind in visualizing the future.

Motivation / Take-Off
Instructions: Look at the picture. Do you think that there will come a time in the future that will no longer
need humans? Write your brief opinion on the space provided.

Source: https://images.app.goo.gl/xLoHAp6Q6T7Mmujw6

Lesson Proper
Can you imagine a future without the human race? Do you think at robots and machines can
replace humans? Do you believe that there will come a time when human existence will be at the mercy of
robots and machines? Is it also possible that medical breakthroughs in the future may go terribly wrong that
a strain of drug-resistant viruses could wipe out the entire human race?

For some, imagining a future without humans is nearly synonymous to the end of world. Many
choose not to speculate about a future where humans cease to exist while the world remains However, a
dystopian society void of human presence is the subject of many works in literature and film. The possibility
of such society is also a constant topic of debates.

In April 2000, William Nelson Joy, an American computer scientist and chief scientist of Sun
Microsystems, wrote an article for Wired magazine entitled Why the future doesn’t need us? In his article,
Joy warned against the rapid rise of new technologies. He explained that 21st-century technologies-
genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) -are becoming very powerful that they can potentially bring
about new classes of accidents, threats, and abuses. He further warned that these dangers are even more
pressing because they do not require large facilities or even rare raw materials-knowledge alone will make
them potentially harmful to humans.

Joy argued that robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology pose much greater threats than
technological developments that have come before. He particularly cited the ability of nanobots to self
replicate, which could quickly get out of control. In the article, he cautioned humans against
overdependence on machines. He also stated that if machines are given the capacity to decide on their
own, it will be impossible to predict how they might behave in the future. In this case, the fate of the human
race would be at the mercy of machines.

Joy also voiced out his apprehension about the rapid increase of computer power. He was also
concerned that computers will eventually become more intelligent than humans, thus ushering societies
into dystopian visions, such as robot rebellions. To illuminate his concern Joy drew from Theodore
Kaczynski's book, Unabomber Manifesto, where Kaczynski described that the unintended consequences
of the design and use of technology are clearly related to Murphy's Law: "Anything that can go wrong, will
go wrong" Kaczynski argued further that overreliance on antibiotics led to the great paradox of emerging
antibiotic resistant strains of dangerous bacteria. The introduction of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 17 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering
to combat malarial mosquitoes, for instance, only gave rise to malarial parasites with multi drug resistant
genes.

Since the publication of the article, Joy's arguments against 21st- century technologies have
received both criticisms and expression of shared concern. Critics dismissed Joy's article for deliberately
presenting information in an imprecise manner that obscures the larger picture or state of things. For one,
John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid (2001), in their article A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-
Gloom Technofuturists, criticized Joy's failure to consider social factors and only deliberately focused on
one part of the larger picture. Others go as far as accusing Joy of being a neo-Luddite, someone who
rejects
new technologies and shows technophobic leanings.

As a material, Joy's article tackles the unpleasant and uncomfortable possibilities that a senseless
approach to scientific and technological advancements may bring. Whether Joy's propositions are a real
possibility or an absolute moonshot, it is unavoidable to think of a future that will no longer need the human
race. It makes thinking about the roles and obligations of every stakeholder a necessary component of
scientific and technological advancement. In this case, it is preeminently necessary that the scientific
community, governments, and businesses engage in a discussion to determine the safeguards of humans
against the potential dangers of science and technology.

Exercise 3. Film Viewing

Instructions: Watch Steven Spielberg's science fiction drama film, A.l: Artificial Intelligence (2001). After
watching the film, reflect on the story of David, a childlike android uniquely programmed with the ability to
love, and write a 200-300-word essay on the topic, "Why does the future need us?" Cite particular scenes
and insights from the movie to support your arguments.

References
1. Quinto, E.J.M. & Nieva, A.D. (2018). Science, Technology and Society: Outcome-Based Module
(1st ed.) C & E Publishing, Inc. Quezon City Philippines.
2. Mcnamara, D.J., Valverde, V.M., & Beleno, III R. (2018). Science, Technology and Society (1 st ed).
C & E Publishing, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines.
3. Ballena, N.D.S., Bernal, R.D., Paquiz, L.G., Ramos, R.C., & Viet, L, C. (2004). Science Technology
and Society. Trinitas Publishing, Inc., Trinitas Complex, Pantoc Road, Pantoc, Meycauayan 3020
Bulacan.

Learning Module – GE 7 (Science, Technology, & Society) Page 18 of 18

https://www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate
Compiled and Edited by: ALVIN M. MAHAWAN, LPT. MAED., COS Instructor, College of Engineering