SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND
always be rooted in his political consciousness.
SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN
CONDITION
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 sections aim to provide
students with cogent and comprebemive knowledge on
the concept of human flourishing in the face of rapid
scientific progress and technological development
Activities on this module shall be accomplished and to
be submitted on the delivery of the next module.
Lesson 1: Technology as a Way of Revealing
INTRODUCTION This section takes the essence of
technology based on Martin Heidegger's work, The
Question Concerning Technology. The section 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
understanding of the essence of technology
LEARNING OUTCOMES
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.
LESSON CONTENT
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 support from leading
postmodernists and post-structuralists of the time,
including Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean-
Francois Lyotard.
In 933, he joined the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and remained
to be a member until it was dismantled toward the end
of World War II. This resulted in his dismissal from the
University of Freiburg in 1949. He was only able to
resume 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
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), Bodenständigkeit Bodenständigkeit (Rootedness-
in-Soil), and Wesensverfassung (Essential Constitution).
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 tents of ethics and morality. Instead, it
should allow the human person to flourish alongside
scientific progress and 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 in society. How technology is
used varies from individual to individual, groups to
groups, and communities to communities according to
their individual and collective functions, goals, and
aspirations. While technology is omnipresent, knowing
its functions requires paying attention to how humans
use it as a means to an end. In this sense, technology is
an instrument aimed at getting things done.
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 correct leads 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 poiesis---a
way of revealing that unconceals aletheia or the truth.
This 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.
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 poiesis. 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 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 synthetic
dyes, artificial flavorings, and toxic materials into the
consumer stream that bring about adverse effects on
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 bringing 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 to their desires.
Enframing, according to Heidegger, is akin to two ways
of looking at the world: calculative thinking and
meditative thinking. In 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 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 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 also
inadvertently gave rise to issues such as invasion of
privacy, online disinhibition, and proliferation of fake
news. The line 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 a 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 is
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
technology is nothing technological, essential reflection
upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must
happen in 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
In this stepping back and taking stock of things, we
begin to wonder and question.
One may admire the intricacy of mechanism and
sophistication of mobile applications. Another may
marvel at the people and circumstances that allowed for
such technology. There is so much wealth of insights
that can be gathered when people stop, think, and
question. "Questioning is the piety of thought," stated
Heidegger in The Questioning Concerning Technology.
Normally, piety is associated with being religious. For
Heidegger, however, piety means obedience and
obedience and submission. In addressing what
technology has brought forth, one cannot help but be
submissive to what his/her thoughts and reflections
elicit. Sometimes, thinking brings forth insights that the
mind has not yet fully understood or developed. There
are times when one's thinking brings for eureka
moments. Whatever understanding is found becomes
significant because it is evoked by questioning who or
what we essentially are in the world. For example, it is a
known truth that we, human beings and everything
around us, are made of the same substances that
constitute the stars. Therefore, we actually are stardust.
Do we just take this matter-of- factly or do we wonder at
its significance? It is when we start questioning that we
submit ourselves to our thoughts. This kind of
questioning leads one to search for his/her place in the
universe and in the grand scale of things. It is thought
this process that one builds a way towards knowing the
truth of who he/she is as a being in this world.
SUMMARY
Science is a voyage of exploration just to find out how
things work and it's really interesting because it is an
ongoing and endless process. It is in this regard that
human flourishing is deeply intertwined with goal
setting relevant to science and technology. The goal of
science and technology and human flourishing fall on
the same grounds which are the good and the truth.
Science and technology have changed the ways we live,
work and think. The well-being of individuals, nations,
and the Earth depends in part on techno-scientific
discoveries and inventions.
LESSON 2: Human Flourishing in Progress and
De-development
INTRODUCTION This section 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-à-vis progress in science and technology.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
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.
LESSON CONTENT
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 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? In the succeeding article,
Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School of
Economics, criticizes the failure growth and
development efforts to eradicating poverty seven
decades ago. More importantly, he offers a
nonconformist perspective toward growth and
development.
Intem
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, its 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.
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.
Instead of pushing poor countries to 'catch up' with rich
ones, we should be getting rich countries to 'catch
down'
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for
each of us to consume 1.8 "global hectares" annually- a
standardized unit that measures resource 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 in the
US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world
with GDP per capita of only and consumption of only 1.9
hectares - right at the threshold of ecological 000
stainability. 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.
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 organizing 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.
1017
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.
Source: Hickel, (2015, Sep 23). Forget 'developing' poor
countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich
countries. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-
professionals-network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-
countries-de-develop-rich-countries- sdgs
SUMMARY
More often than not, development is equated with
growth and greater consumption. The more that a
population is able to consume, the wealthier it is.
Likewise, the more that a person is able to buy stuff, the
higher he/she is on the development scale. The planet,
however, is already overburdened with human
activities. It is about time that we rethink our standards
of development if we truly want to live the good life.
Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School of
Economics, challenges us to rethink and reflect on a
different paradigm of "de-development."