SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY and

SOCIETY

Section II: Science,

Technology and
Society and the
Human Condition

Aileen D. Nieva
Edward Jay M. Quinto
Description
• introduces students to a number of relevant
and timely philosophical foundations aimed at
a multidisciplinary and critical examination of
the functions, roles, and impacts of science
and technology in society
• The section is divided into five units
• These units aim to provide students with
cogent and comprehensive knowledge on the
human person flourishing in terms of science
and technology
Chapter Objectives
At the end of this section, the students must be
able:
1. to critically examine the human condition
2. to critically examine the human flourishing
3. to critically examine the good life vis-à-vis
progress in science and technology.
Contents

Unit 1: Technology as a Way of Revealing

Unit 2: Human Flourishing in Progress and
Development
Unit 3: The Good Life
Unit 4: When Technology and Humanity Cross

Unit 5: Why Does the Future Not Need Us

Unit 1:
Technology as a
Way of Revealing
Unit 1: Introduction: S&T
This unit discusses:

1. the essence of technology based on an in-

depth discussion and analysis of Martin
Heidegger’s work entitled, ‘The Question
Concerning Technology’
2. the unit shall be questioning concerning
technology
3. It subjects the students into a discussion of
the key concepts related to Heidegger’s work
and how these concepts relate to our
understanding of the essence of technology
Intended Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this Unit, students are expected to

demonstrate the following:

1. Differentiate the essences of technology and

modern technology.
2. Discuss and illustrate the danger of modern
technology.
3. Explain art as saving power of modern
technology.
Diagnostics: Learning Checkpoint 1
Instruction: Rate the extent of your agreement to the following
statements using the Osgood scale. You are also given space to write
any comment to further clarify your response.
Statements Agree Disagree Comments (if any)

Technology is a means to an end. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Technology is a human activity. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Poetry is technology. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Modern technology is impatient and violent. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Nature is a standing-reserve. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Man is an instrument of the exploitation of nature. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Man is in danger of being swallowed by technology. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

There is a saving power or a ‘way out’ of the danger

7 6 5 4 3 2 1
of technology.

Art may be the saving power. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Discussion
• At A Glance: Who is Martin
Heidegger?
• It is widely recognized that Martin
Heidegger (1889-1976) is one of the
most important philosophers of the 20th
century, while being considered one of
the most controversial as well.
• “His stern opposition to positivism and
technological world domination received
unequivocal support from leading
postmodern theorists of the time,
including Jacques Derrida, Michel
Foucault, and Jean-François Lyotard.

• In 1933, he joined Adolf Hitler’s National

Socialist German Workers’ Party
(NSDAP).
Discussion
• To know more about the life and
philosophy of Martin Heidegger, you
will watch a five-minute YouTube®
Video entitled, ‘The Philosophy of
Martin Heidegger.’ Alternatively, it can
be accessed in this link:
https://www.youtube.com /watch?
v=Br1sGrA7XTU. This can be done as
a group in class, if internet access is
available, or individually as an added
out-of-class work.
• Remember, it is important to
understand basic concepts related to
Martin Heidegger’s philosophy in
order to better make sense of his
work, ‘The Question Concerning
Technology.’
Human Flourishing in Science and
Technology
• Science and Technology have seeped into people’s everyday living
• The essence of technology is captured when ‘what’ technology is
questioned. In his treatise entitled, ‘The Question Concerning
Technology’, Martin Heidegger explains two widely embraced
definitions of technology: (1) instrumental and (2)
anthropological.
1. Instrumental Definition: Technology as a means to an end
Technology is not an end in itself. Instead, it is a means to an
end. Along this line, technology is viewed as a tool available for
individuals, groups, and societies who desire to make an impact.
How technology is used varies from individual to individual, groups
to groups, and societies to societies according to their individual and
collective functions, goals, and aspirations. While technology is
omnipresent, what it is for requires paying attention to how
humans use it as a means to an end. In this sense, technology is
defined as an instrument and is aimed at getting things done.
Human Flourishing in Science and
Technology
2. Anthropological Definition: Technology as a human activity
Alternatively, technology can also be defined as a human
activity. It is a human activity, because to achieve an end and
produce and use means to an end is, by itself, a human activity.
The production or invention of technological equipment, tools, and
machines, the products and inventions themselves, and the
purpose and functions they serve all belong to ‘what’ technology is.
• Both definitions, i.e., instrumental and anthropological, are correct.
However, neither touches on the true essence of technology. To
access the true essence of technology, one must necessarily go
back to the Ancient Greek principle of causality.
Technology as a Way of Revealing

• Heidegger envisioned technology as a way of revealing – a

mode of ‘bringing forth.’
• Poeisis – a Greek sense understood as bringing forth, which
is bringing something out of concealment. By bringing
something out of concealment, the truth of that something is
revealed.
• Aletheia – a Greek word means unclosedness,
unconealdness, disclosure.
• Technē – the Greek root word of technology. It encompasses
not only the tangibles but also the intangibles. That is, it
involves not only craft, but also other acts of the mind, such
as poetry.
Technology as Poeisis: 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 explains that modern technology is a
revealing not in the sense of bringing forth or poeisis.
• Heidegger made clear distinction between technology and
modern technology in that the latter ‘challenges’ nature
• Modern technology challenges nature by extracting
something from it and transforming it, and storing it up, and
distributing it. On the surface, Heidegger’s criticism of
modern technology might appear counterintuitive to the
purpose of nature to human existence.
Diagnostics: Learning Checkpoint 2
Instruction: Do the following photos (a) bring forth or (b) challenging
forth. Encircle the letter of your answer below each photo and be ready
to explain your choice to the class.

a. bring forth b. challenge forth a. bring forth b. challenge forth a. bring forth b. challenge forth

a. bring forth b. challenge forth a. bring forth b. challenge forth

a. bring forth b. challenge forth
Enframing as Modern Technology’s
Way of Revealing
• Heidegger distinguished the way of revealing of modern
technology by considering it as an enframing.
• Man’s desire to control everything, including nature, is
captured in enframing. By putting things, in this case nature,
in a frame, it becomes much easier for man to control it
according to their desire.
• Enframing is more akin to the first of two ways in looking at
the world: calculative thinking and meditative thinking. In
calculative thinking, man desires to put an order in nature to
better understand and control it.
• The role of man as an instrument of technology through
enframing is a destining.
• Destining - men are sent upon the way of revealing the
actual as a standing-reserve.
The Danger of Technology
• The danger of technology is the human person being swallowed
by it. Although man is looped into the cycle of bringing forth or
challenging forth of nature, it is man’s responsibility to recognize
the confines of being an instrument of technology.
• Brazilian novelist Paulo Coelho once remarked, it is boastful for
man to think that nature needs to be saved, whereas Mother
Nature would remain even if man ceases to exist. Hence, a fear of
disappearing in our home should encourage us more potently than
a fear of a home disappearing in facing the dangers of technology.
• So, the real threat of technology comes from its essence, not its
activities or products. The rightful response to the danger of
technology is not simply dismissing technology altogether.
• Heidegger (1977) explained that we are ‘delivered over to it in the
worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for
this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to do
homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology.’
Art as the Saving Power
• Modern technology tends to enframe nature and prevent the
unconcealment of aletheia in the sense of poeisis. At this point, we
understand that modern technology tends to challenge nature into
revealing through violent and urgent means.
• A thing is poetic when it is more attuned to the order of nature, without
being enframed or controlled. Thus, poetic are the falling of leaves in
autumn, trees putting forth new green shoots, and the flowing of a
stream downhill to the ocean. This poetry in nature is blocked when
enframing sets in.
• Heidegger quoted the German poet Friedrich Hölderlin as follows, ‘But
where danger is, grows the saving power also’ (1977, p. 14).
• Heidegger proposed art as the saving power and the way out of
enframing: ‘And art was simply called technē. It was a single,
manifold revealing’ (1977, p. 18).
• Heidegger encapsulated his: Because the essence of technology is
nothing technological, essential reflection upon technology and
decisive confrontation with it must happen in a 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
• Heidegger concluded his treatise on technology as follows: The closer
we come to the danger, the more brightly do the ways into the
saving power begin to shine and the more questioning we become.
For questioning is the piety of thought (1977, p. 19).
• Heidegger underscored the importance of questioning in the midst of
technology. For him, there is unparalleled wisdom gained only when man
is able to pause, think, and question. Humans are swallowed by
technology when they are caught up in the enframing of technology and
fail to pay attention to the intricacies of technology, the brilliance of their
purpose, and the genius of individuals that put them forth.
• Questioning is the piety of thought. It is only through questioning that we
are able to reassess our position not only in the midst of technology
around us, but also and importantly in the grand scheme of things.
• Heidegger posited that it is through questioning that we bear witness to
the crises that a complete preoccupation with technology brings,
preventing us from experiencing the essence of technology, and that a
complete aesthetic-mindedness prohibits us from guarding and
preserving the essence of art.
SOCIETY

Section II: Science,

Technology and
Society and the
Human Condition

Aileen D. Nieva
Edward Jay M. Quinto
Description

• introduces students to a number of relevant

and timely philosophical foundations aimed at
a multidisciplinary and critical examination of
the functions, roles, and impacts of science
and technology in society
• The section is divided into five units
• These units aim to provide students with
cogent and comprehensive knowledge on the
human person flourishing in terms of science
and technology
Chapter Objectives
At the end of this section, the students must be
able:
1. to critically examine the human condition
2. to critically examine the human flourishing
3. to critically examine the good life vis-à-vis
progress in science and technology.
Contents

Unit 1: Technology as a Way of Revealing

Unit 2: Human Flourishing in Progress and
Development
Unit 3: The Good Life
Unit 4: When Technology and Humanity Cross

Unit 5: Why Does the Future Not Need Us

Unit 2:
Human Flourishing
in Progress and
Development
Unit 2: Human Flourishing in
Progress and Development
This unit presents:

1. Jason Hickel’s development framework described

as ‘de-developing’ rich countries.
2. As a departure from traditional frameworks of
growth and development, Hickel’s ‘de-developing’
framework is discussed as an alternative to
narrowing the gap between rich and poor countries.
3. taking off from this alternative framework, the unit
critiques human flourishing vis-à-vis progress in
science and technology, so that students can
define for themselves the meaning of the good life.
Intended Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this Unit, students are expected to

demonstrate the following outcomes:

1. Discuss human flourishing in the context of

progress in science and technology
2. Explain ‘de-developing’ as a progress and
development framework
3. Differentiate traditional frameworks of
progress and development and Hickel’s ‘de-
developing’ framework.
Learning Checkpoint 3
Instruction: Look at this picture.

Recent research found 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our
planet and society at risk. Form a group of three and discuss your thoughts about the following:
1. How do you think overconsumption puts our planet and society at risk?
2. What are the manifestations of society’s tendency to overproduce and overconsume?
3. Should middle- and high-income countries regulate their growth and consumption? Why or why not?
Discussion
Thoughts to Ponder

Despite efforts to close out the gap between poor and rich countries, a 2015 BBC report
stated that the growth gap keeps widening. Although there is no standard measure of
inequality, the report claimed that most indicators suggest that the widening of the growth
gap slowed or fell during the financial crisis and is now growing again. Continued
sharpening of inequality appears paradoxical having in mind the efforts that had been
poured in on development efforts to assist poor countries to rise from absent to slow
progress. At this backdrop, we could not help but ask ourselves whether we are indeed
progressing. In the context of unprecedented scientific and technological advancement and
economic development, we ask ourselves whether we, humans, either as individuals or as
a collective, are indeed flourishing. If development efforts to close out the gap between the
rich and poor countries have failed, can we possibly confront the challenges of
development through a nonconformist framework? In the succeeding article, Jason Hickel,
an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, criticize the failure of growth and
development efforts dating back to seven decades ago to eradicate poverty and offers a
nonconformist perspective toward growth and development.
Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32824770 on April 25, 2018.
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.
Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to
'de-develop' rich countries
by Jason Hickel

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.
Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to
'de-develop' rich countries
by Jason Hickel

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.
Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to
'de-develop' rich countries
by Jason Hickel

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.
Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to
'de-develop' rich countries
by Jason Hickel

• 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.
• Jason Hickel is an anthropologist at the London School of Economics. Follow
@jasonhickel on Twitter.
• Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-sdgs on May
7, 2017.
ARE WE LIVING THE GOOD
LIFE?
ARISTOTLE’S
NICHOMACHEAN
ETHICS
ARISTOTLE (384-322)
❖ Originally from Macedon
❖ Arrived Athens in 367, Student of Plato
❖ Left Athens in 347, taught Alexander
❖ Returned to Athens 334, founded Lyceum
❖ Left Athens in 323, after death of Alexander
❖ Works on topics: biology, physics, logic,
music and art, politics, ethics, etc.
❖ Wrote dialogues, but only lecture notes
survive
❖ Considered “The Philosopher” in Middle
Ages
NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS
❖ A treatise on the nature of moral life
and human happiness, based on the
unique essence of human nature
❖ Named after one of Aristotle’s son
who is thought to have edited it from
lecture notes.
OUTLINE

❖ The Greatest Good: Eudaimonia

❖ Eudaimonia and the Human Soul
❖ The Virtues
❖ “The Golden Mean”
THE GREATEST GOOD:
EUDAIMONIA
Every action aims at some good
•Some actions aim at an instrumental good
•Some actions aim at an ultimate good

Ultimate goods are better than

instrumental goods
•Instrumental goods (ends) are aimed at only
insofar as they are for the sake of something
else
•Ultimate goods (ends) are aimed at for their
ULTIMATE GOOD?
Candidates Critiques
Pleasure ✓Transient, not
complete

Wealth ✓Only instrumental, not

self-sufficient
Fame & Honor
✓Depends on others,
not self-sufficient
Happiness
✓Complete and self-
sufficient
HAPPINESS?

Eudaimonia
•Well-being or doing well
•“activity of the soul in accordance with
virtue or excellence” (EN I.7)

More complete than merely

feeling good or joyful
•Feeling well in all aspects of life
EUDAIMONIA AND THE
HUMAN SOUL
Human happiness must be uniquely
human, or a distinct human function.
Consider the structure of the psyche:
•nutritive, sensitive, and rational parts
•Which is uniquely human?

Only the rational element is distinctive

of humans.
So, human happiness consists of a
rationally directed life…a whole life…
ARISTOTLE’S TRIPARTITE
SOUL
Theoretical
Rational Humans Rational
Practical

Will
Appetites
Sensitive Animals Partly-rational
Sensation
Movement

Animative
Nutritive Plants Non-rational
Generative
THE VIRTUES
A virtue (areté) is what makes one function
well; usually understood as a disposition or
state of a person.
Conditions for virtue: fortune and success
•Basic necessities, good birth, friends, wealth, good
looks, health, etc.
Types of virtue
•Virtues of thought: wisdom, comprehension,
etc.
•Achieved through education and time
•Virtues of character: generosity,
temperance, courage, etc.
•Achieved by habitual practice
•Both should be in accord with
“THE GOLDEN MEAN”

Virtue is ruined by excess and

deficiency (in feelings and action)
•Consider health
So, is learned by the mean of excess
and deficiency
•A balance or intermediate between
extremes
But a “relative” mean*
•Not a geometric or arithmetic average…
•A mean relative to the person, the
circumstances, as well as the right emotional
component (EN II.3 and II.6)
COURAGE
The right action and emotional response in
the face of danger

Fool-heartiness or rashness is an excess of

the emotional and/or proper action;
(doesn’t properly appreciate the danger,
not fearful)

Cowardice is the deficiency of proper

emotion (motive) and action; (the danger
is over-appreciated, too fearful)
SOME VIRTUES & MEANS
Deficit Virtue Excess
Cowardice Courage Rashness

Insensible Temperance Self-indulgence

Meaness, stinginess Liberality or Prodigiality,

generosity spendthrift

Mock-modesty Truthfulness boastfulness

WHAT?
Deficit Virtue Excess
Magnificence
? ?
(money matters)

Lazy ? Zealous

Undue Humility ? Vanity

Pleasantness
? ?
(Friendliness)
WHAT?
Deficit Virtue Excess

Magnificence
Niggardliness Tasteless or vulgarity
(money matters)

Proper Desire
Lazy Zealous
(ambitious?)

Undue Humility Proper Pride Vanity

Pleasantness
Quarrelsome, surly Obsequious, flatterer
(Friendliness)
OTHERS
Deficit Virtue Excess

Shameless Modesty Bashfulness

Righteous
Envy Spite
Indignation

Boorishness Witty Buffoonery

BASIC MODEL
Ends

Want Eudaimonia
BASIC MODEL
Means? Ends

? Eudaimonia
BASIC MODEL
Means Ends

Areté Eudaimonia
BASIC MODEL
Means Ends

Areté Eudaimonia
A disposition or character Rationally guided, whole
trait (intellectual, life; complete with emotion,
emotional) to choose or be intellect, action, sociality,
motivated to actions that etc.
are a relative intermediate
between extremes of
excess and deficiency.
SOCIETY

Section II: Science,

Technology and
Society and the
Human Condition

Aileen D. Nieva
Edward Jay M. Quinto
Description

• introduces students to a number of relevant

and timely philosophical foundations aimed at
a multidisciplinary and critical examination of
the functions, roles, and impacts of science
and technology in society
• The section is divided into five units
• These units aim to provide students with
cogent and comprehensive knowledge on the
human person flourishing in terms of science
and technology
Chapter Objectives
At the end of this section, the students must be
able:
1. to critically examine the human condition
2. to critically examine the human flourishing
3. to critically examine the good life vis-à-vis
progress in science and technology.
Contents

Unit 1: Technology as a Way of Revealing

Unit 2: Human Flourishing in Progress and
Development
Unit 3: The Good Life
Unit 4: When Technology and Humanity Cross

Unit 5: Why Does the Future Not Need Us

Unit 4:
When Technology
and Humanity
Cross
Unit 4: When Technology and
Humanity Cross
This unit introduces:

1. Quintessential documents that protect human rights and ensure

the well-being of the human person in the face of science and
technology.
2. If humans are to journey toward living the good life, they have to
be able to exercise independence in making informed choices
about their relationship with Science and Technology as it
interacts with society.
3. The unit draws from S. Romi Mukherjee’s proposals for human
rights-based approaches to science, technology, and
development. It reviews key principles from the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO Recommendation on the
Status of Scientific Researchers, and UNESCO Declaration on
the Use of Scientific Knowledge and how these international
documents position human rights in the intersection of technology
and humanity.
Intended Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this Unit, students are expected to

demonstrate the following outcomes:

1. Explain human rights-based approach to

science, technology, and development.
2. Identify key documents and their principles
that ensure the well-being of humans in the
midst of scientific progress and technological
development.
3. Discuss the importance of upholding human
rights in science, technology, and
development.
Learning Checkpoint 5
Instruction: Rate the extent of your agreement to each statement by
ticking (/) the box that corresponds to your response in each row.
Statements Extremely Agree Somewhat Agree To a Limited Extent Somewhat Disagree Extremely Disagree

1. Human rights are fundamental rights.

1. Responding to urgent global challenges allows setting

aside some human rights.

1. It is not the duty of scientists and innovators to protect

the well-being and dignity of humans.

1. Human rights should be at the core of any scientific

and technological endeavor.

1. The good life is a life where human rights are upheld.

1. Human rights should be integral to the journey toward

the ultimate good.

1. It is not the primary function of science and

technology to protect the weak, poor and vulnerable.

1. There is no way for science and technology to function

fully as a safeguard of human rights.

1. A human rights-based approach to science,

technology, and development is imperative.

1. The protection of human rights and continued

scientific and technological advancement can work
hand-in-hand.
Discussion
A human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development

One’s human rights in the face of scientific and technological advancement are critical
factors in the journey toward Eudaimonia or the good life. Exercise of the right to accept or
reject, minimize or maximize, and evaluate and decide on the scope and function of
science and technology indicates human flourishing in science and technology. The
protection of the well-being and the upholding of dignity of the human person must be at
the core of continued progress and development. Such is the focus of a human rights-
based approach to science, technology, and development.
S. Romi Mukherjee, a senior lecturer in Political Theory and the History of Religions at the
Paris Institute of Political Studies, explained human rights-based approach to science,
technology and development as follows:

“[It] seeks to place a concern for human rights at the heart of how the international
community engages with urgent global challenges. The UN Development Programme
characterizes this approach as one that ‘leads to better and more sustainable outcomes by
analyzing and addressing the inequalities, discriminatory practices and unjust power
relations which are often at the heart of development problems. It puts the international
human rights entitlements and claims of the people (the ‘right-holders’) and the
corresponding obligations of the state (the ‘duty-bearer’) in the center of the national
development debate, and it clarifies the purpose of capacity development.’”
Discussion
Mukherjee (2012) furthered that this approach identifies science as ‘a
socially organized, human activity which is value-laden and shaped by
organizational structures and procedures.’ Moreover, it requires answer on
whether governments and other stakeholders could craft and implement
science and technology policies that ‘ensure safety, health and livelihoods;
include people's needs and priorities in development and environmental
strategies; and ensure they participate in decision-making that affects their
lives and resources.’
Multiple international statutes, declarations and decrees have been
produced to ensure well-being and human dignity. These documents are
integral in a human rights-based approach to science, technology and
development. Mukherjee listed some of the most important documents that
center around a human rights-based approach to science, development,
and technology, and their key principles:
Discussion
Table 2. Useful documents for a human-rights based approach
to science, technology, and development
Document Key Principles
This document affirms everyone's right to participate in and benefit from scientific
Universal Declaration of Human Rights advances, and be protected from scientific misuses. The right to the benefits of
(Article 27) science comes under the domain of 'culture', so is usually examined from a cultural
rights perspective.
This document affirms that all advances in scientific and technological knowledge
should be solely geared towards securing well-being for global citizens, and calls upon
UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of
member states to develop the necessary protocol and policies to monitor and secure
Scientific Researchers — 1974 (Article 4):
this objective. Countries are asked to show that science and technology is integrated
into policies that aim to ensure a more humane and just society.
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 an adequate and evenly distributed scientific
UNESCO Declaration on the Use of and technological capacity through appropriate education and research programmes
Scientific Knowledge — 1999 (Article 33) 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 resource
use, biodiversity protection and brain drains.
Discussion
A human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development
provides parameters for the appraisal to how science, technology, and
development could promote human well-being. Thus, a discussion of human
rights in the face of changing scientific and technological contexts must not
serve merely decorative moral dimensions to science, technology, and
development. As Mukherjee (2012) posited, this approach ‘can form the very
heart of sustainable futures.’
Human rights should be integral to the journey toward the ultimate good. They
should serve to guide humans to flourish not only as individual members of
society, but also to function as parameters on which to assist each other in
flourishing as a unit, 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 the 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 aspects both tangible, such as services and natural
resources, and intangible, such as well-being and human dignity. Ultimately, all
these would lead humans to flourish together in science and technology.
SOCIETY

Section II: Science,

Technology and
Society and the
Human Condition

Aileen D. Nieva
Edward Jay M. Quinto
Description

• introduces students to a number of relevant

and timely philosophical foundations aimed at
a multidisciplinary and critical examination of
the functions, roles, and impacts of science
and technology in society
• The section is divided into five units
• These units aim to provide students with
cogent and comprehensive knowledge on the
human person flourishing in terms of science
and technology
Chapter Objectives
At the end of this section, the students must be
able:
1. to critically examine the human condition
2. to critically examine the human flourishing
3. to critically examine the good life vis-à-vis
progress in science and technology.
Contents

Unit 1: Technology as a Way of Revealing

Unit 2: Human Flourishing in Progress and
Development
Unit 3: The Good Life
Unit 4: When Technology and Humanity Cross

Unit 5: Why Does the Future Not Need Us

Unit 5:
When Technology
and Huminity
Cross
Unit 5: Why does the future not
need us?
This unit tackles:

1. The danger posed by science and technology

unchecked by moral and ethical standards. It
primarily draws insights from Bill Joy’s (2000)
article, “Why the future does not need us?” as a
takeoff point in evaluating contemporary human
experience with science and technology and
whether such experience strengthens and
enlightens the human person functioning in
society.
Intended Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this Unit, students are expected to

demonstrate the following outcomes:

1. Identify William Nelson Joy’s arguments as to

why the future does not need us.
2. Evaluate contemporary human experience
with science and technology to strengthen
the human person flourishing.
3. Identify and examine local government laws
and policies that protect the well-being of the
human person in the midst of science and
technology.
Learning Checkpoint 5
Instruction: Look at the picture . Do you think that there will come a future that will not need humans? Write your brief
opinion on the space provided.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
Why the future doesn’t need us?

In April 2000, William Nelson Joy, an American computer scientist and chief scientist
of Sun Microsystems, wrote an article for Wired magazine entitled, ‘Why the future
doesn’t need us?’ In his article, Bill Joy warned against the rapid rise of new
technologies. He explained:

“The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics

(GNR) - are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents
and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses
are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not
require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the
use of them” (Joy, 2000).
Discussion
He argued that robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology
pose much greater threats than those that have come before. He
particularly cited bot’s ability to self-replicate, which could quickly get out
of control. In the article, he cautioned humans against overdependence on
machines. He specifically stated:

“If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions,
we can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is
impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only
point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the
machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be
foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we
are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn
power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully
seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily
permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the
machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of
the machines' decisions.”
Discussion
Joy also voiced out his apprehension about rapidly increasing
computer power. Joy’s worry is that computers will eventually
become more intelligent than humans, thus ushering societies into
dystopian visions, such as robot rebellion. To illuminate his concern,
Joy drew from Theodore Kaczynski’s book, “Unabomber,” as
follows:

“Kaczynski's dystopian vision describes unintended

consequences, a well-known problem with the design and use
of technology, and one that is clearly related to Murphy's law –
‘Anything that can go wrong, will.’ Our overuse of antibiotics
has led to what may be the biggest such problem so far: the
emergence of antibiotic-resistant and much more dangerous
bacteria. Similar things happened when attempts to eliminate
malarial mosquitoes using DDT caused them to acquire DDT
resistance; malarial parasites likewise acquired multi-drug-
resistant genes.”
Discussion
Since the publication of the article, Joy’s arguments against 21st-
century technologies have received both criticisms and expression
of shared concern. His 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 Brown and
Paul Duguid (2001), in their article “A Response to Bill Joy and the
Doom-and-Gloom Technofuturists,” criticized Joy’s failure to
consider social factors and deliberately just focusing 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.

Joy, W. N. (2000, April 1). Why the future doesn’t need us? Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ on May 1, 2018. Brown, John Seely; Duguid, Paul
(2001). "A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom Technofuturists" (PDF). Science and
Technology Policy Yearbook. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved
on May 1, 2018