CHAPTER

Science, Technology, and Society and the Human

4 Condition

LESSON 1: TECHNOLOGY AS A WAY OF REVEALING

Objectives: At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
describe various concepts of technology; and
explain how technology became a way of revealing.

ENGAGE
Unravelling Cellphone Culture
Based on the photo beside, in your opinion, how
was cellphone culture revealed in the modern
world?

http://3hb16247e7cw396nr92x2pjx78n.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/141229100742- 400x267.jpg

DISCUSSION
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 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:
(l) 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, 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 poeisis—a way of revealing that unconceals
aletheia 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.

Technology as Poiesis: Does Modern Technology Bring Forth or Challenge Forth?

Heidegger, in The Question Concerning Technology, posited that both primitive crafts and
modem technology are revealing. However, he explained that modem technology is revealing not in
the sense of bringing forth or poeisis. Heidegger made a clear distinction between technology and
modem 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 modem 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
modem 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 on human health; and the
use of ripening agents in agriculture that poses threats to food safety and health security.

Question to Ponder on…

What do you think are other challenges brought by technology?

(Share your answers on the comment section of this topic in the Google classroom)

References:
Labana, R. V., Reboa, A. C., Pedral, J. G., & Bautista, A. B. (2019). Science, Technology and Society. Quezon City: MaxCor
Publishing House, Inc.

Quinto, E. M., & Nieva, A. D. (2019). Science, Technology, and Society. Quezon Cuty: C&E Publishing, Inc.
 CHAPTER Science, Technology, and Society and the Human
4 Condition

LESSON 2: HUMAN FLOURISHING REFLECTED IN PROGRESS AND

DEVELOPMENT

Lesson Objectives: At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
identify progresses in human condition with the aid of science and technology;
examine the role of modern technology in human flourishing;
critique human flourishing in relation to the progress of science and technology;
explain Hickel’s paradigm of “de-development”; and
differentiate Hickel’s “de-development” from traditional notions of growth and
consumption.

ENGAGE
How do we know that we are progressing?
What are the indicators of development?

Your answer:

DISCUSSION
Humanity has come a long way from pre-history. We are more developed, much better as
compared than we were before. Advancements in medicine, technology, health and education
shows human flourishing. Below are data in some areas which show the development of humanity due
to the progress in science and technology. (Note: I advise that you analyze and interpret first the graph
before reading its description.)
1. Life Expectancy- This indicates the number of years in which humans are expected to live.
 We see in the graph that life expectancy increased. Aside from the reason that people
engage less in combats and are less likely to die in untreatable diseases now as compared in the
past, science is able to prolong lives by enhancing living status and discovering remedies to most
diseases. Distribution of medicine is also made faster and easier.

2. Mortality Rate- Mortality rate, also known as death rate, indicates the numbers of death by place,
time, population, or age.

We see in the graph that mortality rate, both for infants and ages 15-59, decreased as we
forward to the present. Based on the graph, we can also observe that highly developed regions
such as America and Europe has lesser mortality rate. Due to technology, lesser women and
children die during birth. Medical care for premature infants allows them to survive and develop
normally. Advancements in medicine and technology paved way in discovering cures to several
diseases.

3. Literacy Rate- As defined by UNESCO, a literate person is one who with understanding can both
read and write. Literacy rate indicates the number of people who are able read and write. In the
graph below, the blue portion indicates the percentage of literate while red indicates the
percentage of illiterate. We see that from 1800s, there are more illiterate persons. But as we move
towards the present, there are more literate persons in the world. This is a result of a more
accessible education.

Literate world population

Illiterate world population

 Life expectancy, mortality rate, and literacy rate are some indicators of human development.
Other than these, more often, progress and development is equated with growth and greater
consumption. The more that a population is able to consume, the wealthier it is. Likewise, the more a
person is able to buy, the higher he/she is on the development scale. The planet, however, is already
overburdened with human activities. If development is equated to how much one can afford or
obtain, our planet’s resources will not be enough to supply us. Let us consider Jason Hickel’s paradigm
of “de-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 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.
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global
hectares” annually – a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly
what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and
Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times
their fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that
instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get
rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at societies
where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as
basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living.
How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years
and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere
fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest
literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares –
right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador,
Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields improvements
in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But even if we look at
measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of low- and
middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest happiness
indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US.
In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as
appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global
south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent consumer
research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our
planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should strive to buy and own less, and that
doing so would not compromise our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with the
dominant model of economic progress and they are hungry for an alternative narrative.
The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language.
They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development, which are technically
accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because
they run against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the purpose
of life itself. It’s like asking people to stop moving positively thorough life, to stop learning, improving,
growing.
Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step
in the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need to
reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward quality
instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing amounts of
stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not
going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.
Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organising alternative visions
around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own tradition of reflection
on the good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his
book How Much is Enough? where they lay out the possibility of interventions such as banning
advertising, a shorter working week and a basic income, all of which would improve our lives while
reducing consumption.
Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the
laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is also a
development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as
food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery
or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of
understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.
References:
Macnamara, D., Valverde, V., & Beleno III, R. (2018). Science, Technology, and Society. Quezon City:
C&E Publishing, Inc.
Mosteiro, Arnaldo P. Science, Technology and Society. Second Edition. Educational Publishing House.
2006.
Serafica, J. J., Pawilen, G. T., Caslib, B. N., & Alata, E. P. (2018). Science, Technology, and Society.
Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Taguiling, M. (2019). Science, Technology and Society. Plaridel, Bulacan: St. Andrew Publishing House.
CHAPTER Science, Technology, and Society and the Human
4 Condition

LESSON 3: THE GOOD LIFE

Lesson Objectives: At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
examine what is meant by good life;
identify how humans attempt to attain what is deemed as good life; and
recognize possibilities available to human being to attain good life.

Below is called the wheel of happiness. For each area, shade the level of
ENGAGE your happiness with 10 being the highest and 1 as the lowest.

What is your ultimate source of happiness?

Do you agree that the main aim of our actions is to achieve happiness?

Your answer:
 DISCUSSION
Eudaimonia
Eudaimonia is a term coined by Aristotle which literally means “good spirited” (eu-good,
daimon-spirit). This has been often translated into “human flourishing” and happiness. In the book of
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, he made a survey on the opinions about happiness. Some may not
agree to this but accordingly, happiness is the ultimate goal we are always aiming at. In other words,
the reason to our actions is to achieve happiness. Try answering these questions.
Why are you attending STS classes?
…To learn (why?)
……To pass quizzes and examination (why?)
………To get a college degree (why?)
…………To get a good job (why?)
……………To earn money (why?)
………………To provide me and my family needs (why?)
…………………To be happy

Eudaimonia is what defines a good life meaning happiness defines a good life. To live a good
life is to live a happy life. Here are some of philosophies (not of Aristotle’s) of achieving a good life.
1. Materialism
It is also known as physicalism or atomism. In this philosophy, happiness is attained by acquiring
material things such as money, house, car, and clothes.
2. Hedonism
This philosophy was led by Epicurus. For hedonists, good life is a life with acquisition of pleasure. For
them, life is about obtaining and indulging pleasure (wants and desires), regardless of its
consequence. For example, if one’s pleasure is in drinking alcohol, based on this philosophy, that
person will drink as much as he wants, whenever he likes to. The mantra in this school of thought is
“eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.”
3. Stoicism
In this philosophy, in order to attain happiness, one must learn to distance oneself and be apathetic
(showing little or no emotion). Events in one’s life cannot be controlled but one can control how
he/she respond to it. This is what stoics believe in.
4. Theism
For theist, their ultimate happiness is their communion with God or their gods/ goddesses.
5. Humanism
For a humanist, decisions are based on reason, empathy and concern for human beings and other
sentient animals. They emphasize on reason and science over religious texts and tradition. For
them, man is solely responsible of his destiny, free from religion, and is innately good.
Question to Ponder
on…
Among those philosophies, which do you think is best in attaining a good life?

Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good

A good life, however, is more than these countless expressions of what is good. Rather, it is
characterized by happiness that comes from living and doing well. Let’s take a look on Aristotle’s view
in achieving a good life, the highest good.
 At present, one may say that having lots of money or being financially stable makes them
happy. According to Aristotle, money is attained for the purpose of something else. No one earns
money just to keep it. Rather, it used to buy our needs and wants. With this, money is not the highest
good.
Some may also say that being successful is another way to be happy. According to Aristotle, it
is not the highest good because it is dependent on other people’s view. In your opinion, you might say
that you are already successful but this may differ from the opinion of other people.
Moving to pleasure, according to Aristotle, people relying on bodily pleasure are “lives intended
for cattle.” Pleasure is not always bad but when in moderation can help in attaining good life but it is
not the highest good.
Many would agree that their happiness is their family, friends, and significant other. According
to Aristotle, while relationships are very important, a person should also have a capacity to be alone.
Adding to it, not all relationships are in good terms.
What is then the highest good according to Aristotle? Happiness defines a good life; that which
comes from living a life of virtue, a life of excellence, manifested from the personal to the global scale.
Virtue plays a significant role in the living and attainment of the good life. It is the constant practice of
the good no matter how difficult the circumstances may be. Virtue is the excellence of character that
empowers one to do and be good.

Question to Ponder
on…Do you agree that good life comes from living a life of virtue and a life of
excellence?

References:
Macnamara, D., Valverde, V., & Beleno III, R. (2018). Science, Technology, and Society. Quezon City: C&E
Publishing, Inc.
Serafica, J. J., Pawilen, G. T., Caslib, B. N., & Alata, E. P. (2018). Science, Technology, and Society. Sampaloc,
Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Taguiling, M. (2019). Science, Technology and Society. Plaridel, Bulacan: St. Andrew Publishing House.