Module 2 Lesson 2 Task Compilation 1

1) Reading Comprehension Task (p.87)

a) What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about?
De-development means that the richer country should slow down their
development so that the poorer countries could catchup at a faster rate than it is today. It
could also mean that the richer countries are the ones to “catchdown” to poorer countries
instead of the poorer countries to catch-up to them.
b) How is the de-development framework different from traditional frameworks of
development?
The de-development framework focuses more on the essence of real life instead
of the country’s economic growth. With Hickel’s framework, many countries will
become more competent since it creates equality between everyone that will be able to
help others as well.
c) According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop?
According to Hickel, a country can de-develop by limiting the products they
consume yearly. If they do this, there will be more available resources left for the poorer
countries to use since the richer countries won’t use up most of the available resources.
Another way for countries to de-develop is by preventing people to buy things that are
unnecessary in their daily lives, thing that they buy just to show off their status.
d) Why does Hickel frown upon pundits using terms such as de-growth, zero growth, or de-
development in describing an alternate framework?
Hickel frowns upon them because they are using the wrong language or words to
describe the transition. It may be technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s
not already onboard. According to Hickel, “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 through life, to
stop learning, improving, growing.”
e) Some people might think that de-development is about giving things up. How does
Hickel explain that this is not the case?
Hickel has stated that, “This is not about giving things 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.”

2) Personal Consumption Audit (p.89)

Product/Food Avg. No. of hours/day I Impact of this ‘de-developing’ on my
daily/weekly/monthly reduce/do away everyday living
amt. consumed with
playing video approx. 6 hours/day 3 hrs/day Lessening my time playing video games will
games give me more time to do other necessary
 things such as helping around the house,
doing school works, or exercising.
eating candy approx. 5 pieces/day 4 pieces/day Lessening my sweets consumption will
prevent me from getting diabetes and will
help keep my body in a healthy state.
Phone usage approx. 14 hours/day 4 hours/day Having a cellphone or a smartphone today is
very necessary. I use to research in the
internet or as an entertainment device.
Lessening my hours of usage will help rest
my eyes from the strain caused by the UV
emitted from the screen.
Air Conditioner 10 hours/day 3 hours/day Lessening my usage of our aircon will help
usage lessen our electric bill since we use to aircons
in our house.
Watching YouTube approx. 5 hours/day 3 hours/day Lessing this will provide the same benefits as
videos lessening my time playing video games.

3) Documentary Analysis (p.93)

a) Why was C. S. Lewis very much a skeptic and critic of scientism? Was he against
science?
C. S. Lewis in not against science and is also not anti-science. He is only opposed
to scientism because it is a belief where modern science the only well-grounded method
of knowledge about our surroundings and the world. It also said believes that scientists
are the ones to dictate our policies and moral beliefs.
b) How did C. S. Lewis explain the following;
a. science as religion
Religion surrounds us. It affects all aspects of life. Science is pretty
similar; it surrounds us and also affects our lives. Because of that, it can act as an
alternate religion
b. science as credulity
C. S. Lewis has observed that people are more likely to believe something
if they heard that something was claimed in the name of science. Even if there are
no evidences to back a claim, people would still believe it. He just wants to tell us
that we should think and understand more before believing something and
confirming whether it is true or not.
c. science as power
To the public, science, with all of its possibilities and potential, is so great
and endless. We can almost do anything with what we can discover almost like
magic. Because we fear the unknown, we submit to the power of science.
c) Why did C. S. Lewis think that modern science is far more dangerous than magic?
Science is far more dangerous because magic can fail. But with science, if one
way fails, you can always find other ways to make it work. Science has infinite potential.
Science is also real while magic is just fantasy or illusions. If you can find the right
formula, we can always use it for dangerous things. An example would be Albert Einstein
 finding the famous equation, E=mc^2. It explains the energy released by an atomic bomb.
Science can be used to take over the world.
d) Why did C. S. Lewis become increasingly considered concerned about the rise of
scientocracy? How does scientocracy relate scientism?
Scientism is related to scientocracy because it will pave the way for the rise of
scientocracy. C. S. Lewis was growing increasingly concerned about the rise of
scientocracy because a person’s thought and opinion would not matter in a world of
scientocracy. Only the opinions of select people would be relevant. We would also be
ruled by scientists and the policies and laws would also be dictated by scientism. Because
of this, human rights may be compromised or violated because of unethical judgments by
the people above the social chain. It also neglects the essence of human life. Making us
blind to the reality that we humans must achieve, and that is happiness and satisfaction of
our lives.
e) Based on what you learned in the documentary film, how does scientism pose a threat to
the human person flourishing in science and technology? Why should science be guided
by an ethical basis that is not dictated by science itself?
The documentary film shows the viewers that scientists can potentially threaten a
human person, whether it be a civilian, military, politician, etc. For me, science should be
guided by an ethical basis that is not dictated by science itself because science and
knowledge equals, power. Most humans would be blinded if given such huge amounts of
power. Ethical rule is important when given a huge amount of power and responsibility.
Being guided by an ethical basis will help us see what is right and what is wrong.