Module 2- SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

LEARNING
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
1. Discuss human flourishing in Science and Technology.
2. Explain De-development as a progress and development framework.
3. Differentiate between traditional framework of progress and development and Hickel’s concept of de-
development.
TOPIC
OUTLINE
Lesson: 2 Human Flourishing in Progress and De-development
OVERVIEW
This lesson tackles human flourishing in science and technology and the rise of global
consumption based on Jason Hickel’s de-development framework.

Flourishing is a state where people experience positive emotions, positive

psychological functioning and positive social functioning, most of the time
living within an optimal range of human functioning. Human flourishing on the other
side focus on the effort to achieve self-actualization and fulfilment within the context of a larger
community of individuals, each with a right to pursue his or her own such efforts.
Human flourishing involves the rational use of one’s individual hum potentialities, including
talents, abilities and virtues in the pursuit of his freely and rationally chosen values and goals. Humans
are considered as both the bearer and beneficiary of science and technology. When we say bearer – a
person or thing that carries or hold something. Human flourishes and finds meaning in the world that
he/she builds. He may unconsciously acquire, consume or destroy what the world has to offer.

Please examine the picture and answer few questions below.

1.Tell something you observe in the picture?

2.How do you think overconsumption puts the planet and society at risk?
3.What are the manifestations of society’s tendency to overproduce and overconsume? Should middle
and high-income countries regulate their growth and consumption? Why?
Recent researches found that around 60’s and 70’s overconsumption was already witnessed in
those middle and high income generating countries. These efforts have placed the planet into risk.
Throughout the 1950’s and early 1960’s there was an increased in factory production and
economic prosperity in the United States contributed to a major rise in the consumer culture dominated
also by recognizable product brands and icons in advertising via mass media. You are tasked to watch
this video clip of Coca Cola art https://tinyurl.com/y3k3fadg
According to BBC Health News, 2019 Meat production today is nearly five times higher than
the early 1960’s- from 70 million tonnes to more than 330 million tonnes in 2017. One of the biggest
Module 2- SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

reason for this there are many more people to feed. The world population over the period of years
double and even tripled. Another key factor in this consumption issue is the rise of incomes; people
have become richer showing tripling global average in their income in half of the century. When we
compare consumption across different countries we see that, typically, the richer we are the more meat
we eat. Therefore, there is a gap between the rich and the poor countries according to Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Should we help the world’s poor? The United Nation cited its goals of reducing the poverty and
inequality by 2015 may not be met. The aid is making the majority of the poor in developing countries
poorer it is the fault of the rich countries that the poor countries become poorer.
In the context of unprecedented scientific and technological advancement and economic
development human are seen flourishing in those developed countries however such flourishing led to
overconsumption of resources in the planet. The use of advance scientific and technological knowledge
supports the growing consumerism culture of the people to crave and to use more of these resources for
their enjoyment and satisfaction.
The succeeding paragraph is the article of Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School
of Economics. He criticizes the failure of growth and development efforts to eradicate poverty seven
decades ago.
Last year, heads of state gathered in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable development
goals (SDGs). The main objective of the SDGs is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One Direction,
Malala and many other celebrities were contracted for the publicity campaign, which was billed as the
largest in the world. When the SDGs were launched, it was staged as a monumental international
celebration. Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs must 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 as it has always been: GDP 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 consumes 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.
Module 2- SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

How much do we really need in order 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 well-being 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 revived it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in their 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 – at least not anything that’s actually important. 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: Pls click http://voices.uni-koeln.de/2016-1/forgetdeveloppoorcountries
 Module 2- SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

LEARNING
ACTIVITY 1
Reading Comprehension Task
Direction: After reading Jason Hickel’s article on the concept of De-development, answer the following questions in two to
three sentences.
1. What do you mean by De-development?
2. According to Jason Hickel what is de-development of rich countries is all about?
3. What are the two indicators of the quality of life given in the article of Jason Hickel?
4. What do you mean by overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk?
5. According to Jason Hickel our addiction to economic growth is killing us what does this mean?
LEARNING
ACTIVITY 2
My Personal Consumption Audit
Direction: People believe that the more they are able to purchase and spend on many things, the more developed and
progressive their lives are. In Jason Hickel’s article he emphasized that huge consumption does not equate to long and happy
lives. Below you are tasked to accomplish this personal consumption audit and see if you can possibly reduce or minimize
without sacrificing, or even improving the quality of your daily life.
My Personal Consumption Audit
Product/Food Ave./Daily/weekly/monthly How much can I Impact of this de-developing on my
Amount consumed reduce /do away with everyday life.
Example: 1 grams daily 3x a week By minimizing eating chocolates, I can still eat
High Carbohydrate food other foods that are nutritious such as
-Chocolate vegetable and fruits.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

LEARNING
ACTIVITY 3
Times for DE growth: To save the planet, we must shrink our economy.
Protecting our planet starts with you. Suggest simple ways you can do to help protect the planet.
1._________________________________
2.________________________________
3.________________________________
4.________________________________
5.________________________________
6.________________________________

SUMMARY
Technology has made possible what previously was impossible. Every discovery,
innovation, and success contributes to our pool of human knowledge. Technology is a human
activity we excel as a result of science.
There are major indicators of development. One of these is the Poverty Level per capita –GDP.
The main objective of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) is to eradicate poverty by 2030.
Module 2- SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

Growth is the standard response to poverty. According to Jason Hickel "Forget 'developing' poor
countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries." This means that instead of pushing poor countries to
catch up with rich countries, there is a need to make the rich countries catch down.

REFERENCES

Quinto et al., (2019). Science, Technology and

Society. C & E Publishing, Inc.
Patria et al., (2018). Science, Technology and
Society. Rexbookstore Inc.

Websites

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-1010/post-war-american-art/popart/v/warhol-coca-cola
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckWP75yk9g(Jason Hickel de-development)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MXP2E09dJQ ( Degrowth Explained)