MODULE 3 – HUMAN FLOURISHING, GOOD LIFE, AND
HUMAN FLOURISHING IN PROGRESS AND DE-
DEVELOPMENT
3.1 HUMAN FLOURISHING
The concept of technology was controversial in
the field of philosophy. Martin Heidegger, a German
philosopher, problematized how a human person relates
to technology. He investigated the meaning of
technology in ancient and modern times. Moving on, you
will also learn the essence of technology, technology as a
way of revealing.
Martin Heidegger
- A German philosopher who is fun of thinking
about 'being', technology and etc.
- Rejected the idea of positivist thinkers and
critical to technological domination in the
modern world
- Was critical to the essence and modern
technology
- Reconstructed the meaning of technology that
reflected in his essay entitled " The Question
Concerning Technology"
3.1.1 THE ESSENCE OF TECHNOLOGY
The Greek concept of the essence of technology
was investigated by Martin Heidegger. The meaning of
technology for the Greeks was assumed to be part of our
everyday life. To clarify further, the term technology was
defined into two categories.
1. Technology is a means to an end
2. Technology is a human activity
The first definition treated technology as an
instrument to achieve a purpose or end. For example,
student A bought a laptop and smartphone to be used for
online learning since students were not allowed to attend
a face-to-face learning. Laptops and smartphones are
instruments for the student to achieve his/her purpose
which is to participate in online learning.
The second definition pointed out that technology is
part of our daily activities of the human person which is
to invent technology such as gadgets for online learning,
protective equipment to fight COVID-19, agricultural
machines to produce foods and etc.
The two definitions of technology are interconnected
with each other in such a way that the outcomes of
human activities are meant to serve their
purpose. However, this definition of technology became
problematic when technology does not serve its purpose
(essence). For example, imagine that COVID-19 will die
naturally. You might think that those PPEs and gadgets for
learning are meaningless because the purpose is not
being served. The revival of face-to-face learning will
make a gadget for online learning less significant in the
traditional classroom.
3.1.2 THE PROBLEMS ON MODERN TECHNOLOGY
The Greek definition of technology as a human
activity designed for a specific purpose was restructured
in modern times. Technology in the modern era was
reduced to calculative thinking that controls nature. For
instance, the invention of the telescope, the steam
machine, and other devices were used to master nature.
In the mastery of nature, we used technology to
manipulate things around us. To see a clear picture,
Heidegger provided three revelations on modern
technology as challenging forth, enframing and
dangerous.
Modern Technology as Challenging Forth
Heidegger claimed that ancient and modern
technology are revealing. However, modern technology
is revealing not in the sense of bringing forth but rather
challenging nature. Modern technology challenges
nature through extracting, transforming, storing, and
distributing it. Challenging forth reduced nature as
standing 'reserve' or something to be disposed of by the
people. For example, people exploited the natural
resources without minding the negative effects on the
ecology, the modernization of extracting gold, coal, and
petroleum from the ground compromised the bodies of
water, using of synthetic dyes and artificial flavoring
jeopardize human health, and the use of chemicals in the
agriculture poses threat to food safety and health
security.
Modern Technology as Enframing
According to Martin Heidegger, modern technology
is enframing. The term 'enframing' derives from the word
'frame' which means putting something into a box. This
metaphorical term of Heidegger connotes that modern
technology put nature into a box through scientific
knowledge. Enframing, according to Heidegger, is akin to
two ways of looking at the world; calculative thinking and
meditative thinking. Humans put an order to nature and
control it through calculative thinking.
The Dangers of Technology
Heidegger at this point is critical to the dangers of
modern technology by pointing out its defects as
enframing nature, challenging forth, treat nature as a
standing reserve. In this case, modern technology
deviated from the essential notion of technology and
revealing or poiesis. Heidegger sees this as a danger to
humanity.
Recognizing the 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 but it is prone to abuse such
as the invasion of privacy, online disinhibition, and
proliferation of fake news.
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 explained that people are
delivered over to technology in the worst possible way
when they regard it as something neutral (Heidegger,
1997).
3.2 GOOD LIFE
A brief overview of Aristotle's Life
Aristotle, who lived from 384 - 322 BC, is
probably the most important ancient Greek philosopher
and scientist. He was a student of Plato and founded a
school named Lyceum. In his own school, Aristotle's
students compiled their lecture notes and came up with
a book entitled Nichomachean Ethics. This
Nichomachean Ethics, dedicated to his son Nichomachus,
became a foundation of Aristotle's ethics composed of
ten books.
What is a good life?
The term 'good life is one of the concerns of
Greek thinkers like Aristotle. In the Nichomachean Ethics,
Aristotle says that every action aims at some good. Some
goods are classified as instrumental or intrinsic. The
instrumental good is a means to achieve something else
while intrinsic good is good in itself or ultimate good
(Eudaimonia or human flourishing/happiness). At this
point, Aristotle is suggesting that if we want to live a good
life then we must develop intellectual and moral virtues.
Eudaimonia
Eudaimonia is a Greek word that means human
flourishing or happiness. Eudaimonia as ultimate good is
the final end of our action. However, Aristotle
categorized well into different aspects; instrumental
good and intrinsic good. Instrumental good aims at
something else while intrinsic good is the final end or
good in itself. For example, enrolling in this course is good
because you will learn something and get a grade at the
end of the day. Why do you want a grade? because I want
to get a college degree. Why do you want to get a degree?
to secure a job. As you push the question, you will end up
in the final end which is the eudaimonia. So studying in
college is instrumental good if it helps you to achieve
happiness. On the other hand, studying in college is
intrinsic good if you are happy with what you are doing
right now. Sometimes, there are people who wrongly
assumed bodily pleasure or wealth, fame, and honor as
eudaimonia. This assumption is wrong because
eudaimonia is exclusive only to a human being who
exercises the faculty of reason.
Human Person
The soul was divided into three; rational,
sensitive, and nutritive. The rational part of the soul is the
ability of a human person to think either based on
theoretical or practical knowledge. Aristotle formulated
the principle of 'man as a rational animal' to achieve
eudaimonia/happiness.
Achieving eudaimonia/happiness is possible only
when a human person learns to identify and choose the
mean of their action between excess and deficiency. By
doing this, we can moderate our actions to achieve the
ultimate good or virtuous action. For example,
integrating advanced technology into human activities
aided workers to produce outputs faster and easier.
Almost everything is run by machines. But, too much
dependent on machines has negative effects on human
well-being. However, those societies that never upgrade
their technology were left behind in the fast-changing
industrial revolution and considered backward societies.
Between the two extremes of actions, a rational animal
who aims to reach eudaimonia should choose the mean
of action of the advanced technocratic society and
backward society. Aristotle's method can be applied to
the action of generosity, courage, anger and etc. to make
them virtuous.
Arete
Arete is one of the significant concepts of Aristotle in
achieving a good life/Eudaimonia or happiness. Arete is a
Greek term that means 'excellence of any kind in terms
of intellectual and moral virtues. Intellectual virtue is
achieved through education and experience. On the
other hand, moral virtue is developed through the
constant practice of an action that promotes good life.
For instance, courage became a virtue when it is properly
displayed at the right time, right manner, and right place
in the face of danger. A person who does not properly
assess the danger and reserve any fear may develop the
vice of foolhardiness or rashness. However, a person may
develop the vice of cowardice if he/she becomes fearful
and incapable of acting on the problem in the face of
danger.
Science, Technology, and Good Life
The rapid development of science and technology is
manifested through the current trend in integrating
machines into human affairs. The automation of
communication, transportation, food production,
education, modernization of medicine, etc. must be
geared towards a good life. Guided by the concept of a
good life, policymakers, state leaders, and technocrats
can work hand-in-hand to make our world a better place
to live in. A world is in a state of balance between excess
and deficiency.
The good life as a final end of human actions is an
indispensable ethical theory that advocates happiness
along with the development of science and technology.
Connecting good life, science and technology requires us
to set our goal which is to achieve eudaimonia. Achieving
eudaimonia is possible through the constant practice of
moral virtues guided by the rational part of the
soul.
3.3 HUMAN FLOURISHING THROUGH PROGRESS AND
DE-DEVELOPMENT
Despite the efforts to close out the gap between the rich
and poor countries, the gap just keeps on widening. (BBC
Headline report in 2015)
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 in 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 absence to
slow progress.
With this backdrop and in the context of
unprecedented scientific and technological advancement
and economic development, a human must ask
themselves whether they are indeed flourishing,
individually or collectively. If development efforts to close
out the gap between the rich and the poor countries have
failed, is it possible to confront the challenges of
development through a nonconformist framework?
Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School
of Economics, criticized the failure of the growth and
development efforts of the UN to eradicate poverty
several decades ago. He conceptualized a nonconformist
perspective toward growth and development.
Here is the outline of Jason Hickel's article on 'Forget
developing poor countries, it's time to de-develop rich
countries.
Assumptions:
1. UN's new sustainable development goals (SDGs)
assumed that growth based on the traditional
economic model is an effective strategy to
eradicate poverty.
2. Gross Domestic Products (GDP) is a measure of
human development.
3. Questions:
 • How much do we really need to live long and
enjoy a happy life?
- According to Peter Edward, instead of pushing
poor 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.
- Genuine Progress is anchored on quality instead
of quantity
• What is a good life or good living?
- Latin Americans organized themselves and
envision the indigenous concept of Buen Vivir, or
good living.
- Robert and Edward Skidelsky conceptualized the
good life through the possibility of interventions
like banning advertising that promotes
consumerism and shortens the working hour,
and basic income.
This topic shows you a radical model of equalizing the
poor and rich countries through eradicating poverty as a
perennial problem. Jason Hickel's criticized the existing
UN model popularly known as new sustainable
development goals (SDGs) and he provided us with a
nontraditional framework for solving the problem of
poverty.
MODULE 4 – WHEN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITY
CROSS AND WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US
4.1 WHEN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITY CROSS
H - human beings'
U - unequivocal
M - means
A - and privilege that
N - need to be
R - respected
I - in order to
G - gain success for humanity
T - today and tomorrow in relation to
S - Science and Technology
What are human rights?
Human rights
- rights inherent to all human beings, whatever
our nationality, place of residence, sex, national
or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, and the
like.
- Human rights in the face of technological and
scientific advancement are critical factors in
one's journey toward a good life. Protecting the
well-being and protecting the dignity of the
human person must be at the core of continued
scientific and technological progress and
development. Such is the focus of the human
rights-based approach to science, technology,
and society by S. Romi Mukherjee.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE THREE IMPORTANT
DOCUMENTS:
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- This document affirms everyone's right to participate in
and benefit from scientific advances, and be protected
from scientific misuse. The right to the benefits of science
comes under the domain of 'culture,' so it is usually
examined from a cultural rights perspective.
2. UNESCO Recommendation of the Status of
Scientific Researchers
- This document that all advances in scientific and
technological knowledge should solely be geared toward
the welfare of the global citizens, and calls upon member
states to develop necessary protocol 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.
3. UNESCO Declaration on the Use of Scientific
Knowledge
- This document states, "Today, more than ever, science
and its applications are indispensable for
development. All levels of government and the private
sector should provide enhanced support for building up
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 resources use,
biodiversity protection, and brain drains.
A human rights 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 on human rights in the face
of the changing scientific and technological contexts
must not serve as merely a decorative moral dimension
of scientific and technological policies but rather the very
heart of sustainable futures.
Human rights should be integrated into 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 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 and intangible
aspects. Ultimately, all these will lead humans to flourish
together through science and technology.
The good life entails living in a just and
progressive society whose citizens have the freedom to
flourish. The human person has the autonomy to make
choices that may enable the flourishing of his/her self
and society. To be able to attain such a good life, one must
need to exercise, and to protect his or her rights for
human dignity is the ultimate core of man's existence.
Thus, the United Nations proclaimed UDHR as a global
standard to ensure that the rights of a person are
recognized and appreciated by individuals regardless of
race, gender, religion, and education. Also, whatever
endeavors one undertakes, whether scientific or not, one
must be aware that human rights must be respected.
4.2 WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US
The article, "Why the Future Does Not Need Us?"
was written by William Nelson Joy, an American
computer scientist of Sun Microsystems. In his article, Joy
warned against the rapid rise of new technologies. He
explained that 21st-century technologies 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 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 quickly gets out of control. In the article, he
cautioned humans against over-dependence 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 his apprehension about the rapid
increase in computer power. He was 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 over-reliance on antibiotics led to the
great paradox of emerging antibiotic-resistant strains of
dangerous bacteria.
Since the publication of the article, Joy's
argument against twenty-first-century technologies has
received both criticisms and expressions 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 and Paul Duguid (2001), in their article, A
Response to Bill Joy and doom-and-gloom
Technofuturists, criticize 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 the 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.

In conclusion, contemporary times have seen a

wide range of technological breakthroughs in all shapes
and sizes. It might be at your house, office, or business. It
makes life simpler, but if not utilized appropriately, it may
also make life impossible.

In short, technology has its own set of

advantages, benefits, and drawbacks. Science and
technology, as William Nelson Joy (2000) points out in his
essay "Why the Future Does Not Need Us," may be the
ultimate manifestation of human rationality. People may
use science and technology to either shape or destroy
the planet.