Week 7: Human Flourishing in terms of Science and Technology
HUMAN FLOURISHING
Are you flourishing as a human?
Similar to the first picture is that we are like plants. We have our own right time
when we will bloom and eventually when we will be fully-grown. On the other hand, are
we happy of growing? Some maybe unlocking some questions in life but most of us are
choosing happiness along with success. Look at the second picture, do you consider
yourself happy just like them? Then at this moment have some realizations and try to
connect these two images by simply answering this question: am I flourishing at the
expense of my happiness?
The Human Person Flourishing in terms of Science and Technology

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.
As time passes by, elements that comprise human flourishing changed, which are
subject to the dynamic social history as written by humans. People found means to live
more comfortably, explore more places, develop more products, and make more money,
and then repeating the process in full circle. In the beginning, early people relied on simple
machines to make hunting and gathering easier. This development allowed them to make
grander and more sophisticated machines to aid them in their endeavors that eventually
led to space explorations, medicine innovations, and ventures of life after death. Our
concept of human flourishing today proves to be different from what Aristotle originally
perceived then- humans of today are expected to become a “man of the world”. He is
supposed to situate himself in a global neighborhood, working side by side among
institutions and the government to be able to reach a common goal.
EASTERN vs. WESTERN CONCEPT on Society and Human Flourishing


In Western civilization, Human Flourishing is focused on the individual himself.
In Eastern civilization, Human Flourishing pertains into community-centric view.
(According to them, community takes the highest regard that the individual should
sacrifice himself for the sake of society.)
This is apparent in the Chinese Confucian system or the Japanese Bushido, both of which
view the whole as greater than their components. The Chinese and Japanese encourage
studies of literature, sciences, and art, not entirely for oneself but in service of a greater
cause.
However, human flourishing as an end then is primarily more concern for western
civilizations over eastern ones. The Greek Aristotelian view, on the other hand, aims
for eudaimonia as the ultimate good; there is no indication whatsoever that Aristotle
entailed it instrumental to achieve some other goals. Perhaps, a person who has achieved
such state would want to serve the community, but that is brought upon through
deliberation based on his values rather than his belief that the state is greater than him,
and thus is only appropriate that he should recognize it as a higher entity worthy of
service.
Why are Diversity and Collaboration in the Scientific Community important towards
Human Flourishing?
Science as a Social Endeavor
Here is an illustration of a Geeky Scientist,
isolated in the windowless basement lab, strictly following the rules of the Scientific
Method, until he finished a great discovery. In this picture science works even all the
steps in the scientific method not followed. The process of science is flexible and may
take many possible paths. Science is done by unique individuals without following a
certain routine with motivation, ambition, and creativity. Many of them are passionate
about their work and many of them are creative towards achieving their goals. Scientists
do spend time working alone in their own lab, field, or at the computer but also in
collaborating with other scientists to widen their perspective as scientist. Most scientific
work also involves reviewing other scientists’ articles for journals, teaching, mentoring
graduate students and younger scientists, speaking at conferences, and participating in
scientific societies. The job of a scientist involves lot more than disappearing into a
windowless lab and running an endless series of experiments. Scientists from such
diverse backgrounds bring many points of view that have bearing on scientific problems.
The following are the importance of diversity and collaboration in the scientific
community towards human flourishing:
1. Collaboration and diversity balance possible ideas
Scientist benefits from other scientists and practitioners with different sets of beliefs,
cultural backgrounds, and values to balance out the possible biases that might happen
if science were practiced by a small group of humanity. Scientists should not be
impartial but be objective in their assessments of scientific issues. In those occasional
cases in which personal biases sneak in, they are kept in check by a diverse scientific
community
2. Diversity and collaboration stimulate problem solving
Two heads are better than one. Science benefits greatly from a community. Problems
arise from different sectors of society. A diverse community is better able to generate a
new research methods, explanations and ideas, which can help science over challenging
obstacles and shed new light on problems for the betterment of the society.
3. Diversity and collaboration facilitate specialization. Scientists have different strengths and
different interests. Not only do people from different backgrounds choose to investigate
different questions, but they may have different approaches in the same question. They
may have different questions on a certain topic. They may have different respondents to
validate their hypothesis. They have different methods that are based on their interests
4. Diversity and collaboration are inspiration and motivation. Interactions in society
encourage innovation and development of ideas about new lines of evidence, new
applications, new questions, and alternate explanations about technology. Some people
are driven by the thrill of competition like the runners run faster, politicians’ campaign
harder, and students’ study more for college exams when they know that they are
competing against others. Scientists are not exempted. Some scientists are motivated by
the sense of competition offered by the community. Likewise, the community offers
scientists the prospect of recognition from the other well-known scientists. In science,
achievement is usually measured, not in terms of money or titles, but in terms of respect
and esteem from colleagues.
5. Diversity and collaboration divide labor. Science is too wide for an individual on his or her
own to handle. Collaborations and division of labor are increasingly important today, as
our scientific understanding, techniques, and technologies expand. There is simply more
to know than ever before and as we learn more about the world, more research is
performed at the intersections of different fields.
Scientific method gives a logical way on how to solve a problem and to improve
our daily living, but science does not work alone. There should be a collaboration among
individuals and have different ideas, drives, characteristics, motivations, culture and
beliefs that help us to attain what we call “human flourishing”.
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
“The essence of technology is by no means anything technological”





German philosopher who was part of the Continental tradition of philosophy
Sternly opposes positivism and technological world domination
Joined the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in 1933
His membership to the Nazi Party made him controversial
Focused on ontology or the study of being or dasein
More info:
The Essence of Technology
“We shall be questioning concerning technology, and in so doing we should like to
prepare a free relationship to it. The relationship will be free if it opens our human
existence to the essence of technology.”
One of Heidegger’s principal aims in his essay is to seek the true meaning of
essence through or by way of the “correct” meaning.
In his treatise, The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger (1977) explains
the two widely embraced definitions of technology:
1. Instrumental definition: Technology 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.

Technology is an instrument aimed at getting things done.
2. Anthropological definition: Technology is a human activity.

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.
Week 8: Technology as a Way of Revealing
Humanity has indeed come a long way from our primitive ways, and as a general
rule, it is said that we are more “developed” than we were before. Modern humans are
reliant on technology in their search for the good life. We see ways and means from nature
to utilize and achieve growth- a goal that we believe would bring forth betterment.
In retrospect, this view of technology proves to be goal-oriented. It assumes that it
is instrumental in achieving a goal in mind, that it is a purposeful, deliberate craft humans
steer in order to reach some greater good. In the advent of postmodernism, however, the
deterministic view appended to technology crumbled as people began to question if
anything is deterministic at all. Apart from its purpose, what is technology? Some tried to
redefine technology away from its purpose. Heidegger argued that its essence or
purpose, and being are different from each other. He was able to expound on this point
upon identifying that technology can either be perceived as first, a means to achieve
man’s end and second, that which constitutes human activity. The second perspective
paints technology in such a way that each period reveals a particular character regarding
man’s being. A characteristic design, or flaw, unfolds based on the repercussions brought
upon by immersing ourselves with a piece of new technology. In effect, through
technology, a myriad of new questions begins to mount. Rather than thinking that humans
have a clear idea of what to expect in a good life, it can be stated that technology allows
humans to confront the unknown and see how they would react. In that sense, technology
is a way of revealing.
Heidegger envisioned technology as a way of revealing – a mode of ‘bringing forth’.
Terminologies:
Poiesis – refers to the act of bringing something out of concealment.

by bringing something out of concealment, the truth of that something is revealed.
Aletheia – translated as unclosedness, unconcealedness, disclosure, or truth.






Thus, for Heidegger, technology is a form of poiesis – a way of revealing that unconceals
aletheia or the truth.
This is seen in the way the term techne 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?
Image retrieved from https://www.creativitypost.com






Heidegger posited that both primitive crafts and modern technology are revealing.
However, he explained that modern technology is revealing not in the sense of bringing
forth or poiesis
“The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging, which puts to nature the
unreasonable demand that it should supply energy which can be extracted and stored as
such”.
Modern technology challenges forth, because it makes people think 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 be disposed of by those who
enframe them – humans.
Does the idea that technology is poiesis apply to modern technology?
Heidegger characterizes modern technology as a challenging forth since it is very
aggressive in its activity. Modern technology may also be a mode of revealing but not as
harmonious bringing forth that is described in his thesis of technology as poiesis. Modern
technology challenges nature and demands of its resources that are, most of the time,
forcibly extracted for human consumption and storage. It brings about a “setting upon” of
the land. Mining is an example of modern technology that challenges forth and brings
about the setting upon of land. It extracts minerals from the earth and forcefully assigns
the land as a means to fulfill the never-ending demands of people.
With modern technology, revealing never comes to an end. The revealing always
happens on our own terms as everything is on demand. Information at our fingertips, food
harvested even out of season, gravity defied to fly off to space-such is the capacity of the
human person. We no longer need to work with the rhythms of nature because we have
learned to control it. We order nature, and extract, process, make ready for consumption,
and store what we have forced it to reveal.
Bringing Forth vs. Challenging Forth
The field that the peasant formerly cultivated and set in order appears differently than it
did when to set in order still meant to take care of and maintain. The work of the
peasant does not challenge the soil of the field.
Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen,
the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium, for example; uranium is set up to yield
atomic energy, which can be unleashed either for destructive or for peaceful purposes.
Enframing as Modern Technology’s Way of Revealing
Image retrieved from https://www.prezi.com


Heidegger distinguished the way of revealing of modern technology by considering it as
a process of enframing.
Humankind’s desire to control everything, including nature is captured in this process.







o



By putting things, in this case nature, in a frame, it becomes much easier for humans to
control it according their desires.
Enframing, according to Heidegger, is akin to two ways of looking at the world:
1. Calculative thinking – humans desire to put an order to nature to better
understand and control it.
2. Meditative thinking – humans allow nature to reveal itself to them without the
use of force or violence.
Calculative thinking tends to be more commonly utilized, primarily because humans'
desire to control due to their fear of irregularity.
Enframing, then, is a way of ordering (or framing) nature to better manipulate it.
Enframing happens because of how humans desire for security, even if it puts all of
nature as a standing reserve ready for exploitation.
Modern technology challenges humans to enframe nature.
Thus, humans become part of the standing reserve and an instrument of technology, to
be exploited in the ordering of nature.
The role humans take as instruments of technology through enframing is
called destining.
In destining, humans are challenged forth by enframing to reveal what is real.
However, this destining of humans to reveal nature carries with it the danger of
misconstruction or misinterpretation.
Week 8: The Dangers of Technology
The Dangers of Technology
Image retrieved from https://www.sci-technolo.blogspot.com

The dangers of technology lie in how humans let themselves be consumed by it.



As mere tenants on Earth, people must not allow themselves to be consumed by
technology lest they lose the essence of who they are as human beings.
In this sense, humans are in danger of becoming merely part of the standing reserve or,
alternatively, may find themselves in nature.
Recognizing its dangers of technology requires critical and reflective thinking on its use.
Example: Social media
Pros: efficient and convenient way of communication
Cons: invasion of privacy, proliferation of fake news




However, the real threat of technology comes from its essence, not its activities or
products.
The correct response to the danger of technology in the technology is not simply
dismissing technology altogether.
Heidegger explained that people are delivered over to worst possible way when they
regard it as something neutral.
“The essence of technology is by no means anything technological.” – M.
Heidegger (1977).
Week 8: Art as the Saving Power
Art as the Saving Power
Necessary reflection upon and confrontation with technology are required in order to
proactively address the dangers of technology. Friedrich Holderlin, a German poet
quoted by Heidegger, said: “But where danger is, grows the saving power also.” Following
this, the saving power can be traced exactly where the danger is – in the essence of
technology.




Heidegger proposed art as the saving power and the way out of enframing: “And art
was simply called techne. It was a single, manifold revealing”
Heidegger saw art as an act of the mind, i.e., a techne, that protected and had great
power over the truth.
Art encourages humans to think less from a calculative standpoint where nature is
viewed as an ordered system.
It inspires meditative thinking where nature is seen as an art and that, in all of art,
nature is most poetic.
The poetry that is found in nature can no longer be easily appreciated when nature is
enframed. If the Earth has just become a gas station for us, then we become enframed
as well. In modern technology, the way of revealing is no longer poietic; it is challenging.
When instruments are observed linearly, its poetry can no longer be found. For example,
the watermill is a primitive structure compared to the hydropower plant; or the first iPhone
model is just an obsolete piece of machine. People no longer realize how the watermill is
more in tune with the rhythms of nature or how much genius went into building the first
iPhone. Therefore, Heidegger proposes that art is a saving power. It saves us from being
unable to see the poetic side of the reality. This leads us to the meditative way of thinking
that we just need the nature to reveal itself without putting any force. In other words, just
like an art, let it portray its message for us without interventions from external sources,
most especially technology. How is this related then to us humans? What is art as a
human face in the modern technology? Art is just like us humans. It depends on how
someone see us relative to the message we want to convey. For example, even there are
lots of advances that we have in technology with our modern world today, let us go back
on how we look at ourselves from the very start. If you wish to inspire other people by
your story then be it. Be the purpose you want to flourish as human. Afterall, it is not
technology that will dictate us what to do. It is you, yourself will help you build the ladder
to your success. Yet, as an art having its various meanings, humans too have his/her
meaning in life. No matter what it is, relay your message and be free from any force.
This is the human face of the modern technology today. We may be coexisting with
technology; this does not mean that we depend much of it. As humans we have lots of
areas to develop in order for us to flourish. We use technology as one means of achieving
our goal but may we not forget our essence as humans. Let us make use of our own
capabilities along with technological advancements. As an open-ended question to you,
what is your human face in the modern technology of today?
Here is an example:
Art by Vincent Van Gogh’s: A Pair of Shoes
Image retrieved from https://www.vincentvangogh.org
Philosophy: For philosopher Martin Heidegger, it represents “silent call of the earth, its
quiet gift of the ripening grain and its unexplained self-refusal in the fallow desolation of
the wintry field”.
Message: The human face of the modern technology is like the pair of shoes.
Humans who depend much on technology gets ripen. Those who forgets his
essence as a human, as time passes by, like shoes it will look weary and old. Keep
shining your shoes to the best of your capabilities with a balance use of
technology. Since we are in modern world today, we need to adapt in technological
advancements to make our lives easier at pace.
Questioning as the Piety of Thought
Heidegger concluded his treatise on technology by saying:
“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.”
For Heidegger, there is unparalleled wisdom gained only when humans are able to pause,
think, and question what is around them. Humans are consumed by technology when
they are caught upon enframing.
Heidegger posited that it is through questioning that humans bear witness to the crises
that a complete preoccupation with technology brings, preventing them from experiencing
the essence of technology. Thus, humans need to take a step back and reassess who
they were, who they are, and who they are becoming in the midst of technology in this
day and age.
Week 8: Technology and Human Condition before and during the
Common Era
Comparing the lives of the people before and now will make anyone realize the changes
that happened in society not just in terms of culture, language, or rights but more
importantly, changes in people’s way of life due to the existence of science and
technology.
In this module, it was previously discussed that technology is a way of revealing and for
us to understand how technology took us to the Common Era, our modern world today,
let us go back in time with the human condition in terms of science and technology.
The term “generation gap” is attributed mainly to the changes brought about by
technology. Although the original idea is for technology to help everyone, it cannot be
denied that until today, not everyone is comfortable in using the different kinds of
technologies. Mostly those who belong to the older generation think that these
technologies are too complicated to operate. They have been used to the simple living in
the past and these available technological devices, though very appealing, are a difficult
puzzle to them.
However, this gap is not something to be worried about. This does not in any way make
technology a villain, it is a challenge for people in the field of science and technology to
make these technological advancements more accessible and less confusing for people
who are not as young anymore. This is also a challenge for the younger generation to
take the older generation to an exciting journey in science and technology. In this way,
everyone can experience what it is like to live with ease and comfort because of the
availability of modern technology.
The Human Condition Before Common Era







Our early ancestors’ primal need to survive paved way for the invention of several
developments. Gifted with brains more advanced than other creatures, humans are able
to utilize abundant materials for their own ease and comfort. As it is difficult to pinpoint
the particular period where technology is said to have started, one can say that at the
very least, the motivation to make things easier has been around since humans are.
Homo erectus have been using fire to cook, through chipping one flint over the other to
produce a spark, all the while without realizing the laws of friction and heat. Tools from
stone and flints marked the era of the Stone Age, during the advent of our very own Homo
sapiens, and humans began to sharpen stones as one would a knife; an example of this
is the simple machine called
This particular period proved to be difficult for our ancestors but in a remarkably distinct
way. There is little to no written accounts except for several cave drawings and unearthed
artifacts from various parts of the world that narrate how their culture came to be. For
instance, there are several excavations in different parts of Europe of miniature statues
prevalent during the Paleolithic period, the so-called “Venus” figure. It depicts a
rudimentary carving of a voluptuous woman out of ivory or stone.
Soon enough, people discovered minerals and began forging metalwork. They realized
that these substances are more durable, malleable, and have more luster than the
previous material. On the other hand, there are some indicators that humans in the past
share the same concerns and interests, suggesting that these inclinations persist through
multitudes of generation over several millennia.
Fur clothing and animal skin are primarily used for comfort against harsh winds- our
ancestors are able to draw the connection between their being naked and vulnerable due
to some lack of fur or protective covering which would otherwise allow them to withstand
extreme weather conditions.
Excavations on the latter half of the Stone Age include several figures thought to be
ceremonial, meaning, that perhaps people of the time had also painstakingly wrought and
hewed said figures in honor of some deity. This notion, as it was then and as it is now, is
often people’s resort to make sense of events happening outside their control.
The initial roster of primitive gods includes objects they encounter through their day-today lives, so it is not surprising that different tribes may have different gods. Those who
might have lived alongside majestic creatures, such as elephants and mammoths, might
have been awed by their size and worshiped them as the owner of the land, asking for
blessings in their hunting ground.
Nevertheless, it can be positively inferred that like the people of today, our ancestors also
found the need to explain things in a way that makes sense to them. They quickly realized
that there are events outside of their control and attempted to justify things as being work
of a supernatural being. Throughout the course of history, religion remains to be the
strongest contender to science arguably due to its being the most easily grasped.
Admittedly, once people stop connecting the dots between cause and effect, they turn to
something that could possibly explain their inadequacies in making sense of the world.
The people of yesterday appeared to have acknowledged early on they could only do and
understand as much, that perhaps other powers at play also existed alongside them.
The Human Condition in the Common Era
Earliest case of man-made extinction occurred over 12,000 years ago, possibly
brought upon by hunting and territorial disputes. The Holocene extinction, also called the
sixth extinction or more aptly Anthropocene extinction, occurred from as early as between
100,000 to 200,000 years up to the present. It pertains to the ongoing extinction of several
species-both flora and fauna- due to human activity.








Growing population necessitated finding additional resources, leading to overhunting
and overfishing common prey, some of which were endemic to the area
Hunting, coupled with a changing terrain that the humans began cultivating when
agriculture emerged some 9,000 years ago, caused several species to lose competition
in territory and food resources.
Formation of communities caused humans to expand more in territory and more people
to feed; large, separate communities hailing from the same ancestors and residing in
the same large community paved way for civilizations.
Trade emerged, leading to cross-town and eventually cross-cultural interaction as more
products were exchanged and the initial needs extended to wants.
Began to hunt, farm, and produce things with prospect of profit.
Products of every kind were exchanged, ranging from necessary ones such as crops,
cattle, poultry, others of kind, and clothing materials, up to metals, accessories,
weapons, spices, literature, and entertainment.
They were able to find and create niches for interests. When they could not sell
products, they used their skills and got compensated for it- bringing forth a specialized
group of artisans.
Humanity became more complex and the primary goal was not merely to survive, but to
live the good life.
Technology has been instrumental in all of these because in searching for the good
life, people were able to come up with creations that would make life easier, more
comfortable, and more enriching. Although the good life envisioned before might be pale
in comparison to the multifariousness of today, it offered us the initial intricacies of how
today came to be. Such intricacies are also evident in the machines created and causes
endeavored by the people of long ago.
The humans of today are much better off compared to humans several centuries
ago. Advancements in medicine, technology, health, and education ushered in humanity’s
best yet, and show no sign of stopping. Below are some of the notable comparisons then
and now:
1. Mortality Rate – Due to technology, lesser women and children die during birth, assuring
robust population and strong workforce. Medical care for premature infants allows them
to survive and develop normally, while proper maternal care ensures that mothers can
fully recover and remain empowered.
2. Average Lifespan- Aside from the reason that people engage less in combat and are less
likely to die in treatable diseases now as opposed to then, science is able to prolong lives
by enhancing living status and discovering different remedies to most diseases.
Distribution of medicines is also made easier and faster.
3. Literacy Rate- Access to education provided to more individuals generally creates a more
informed public that could determine a more just society.
4. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)- Although not an indicator of an average person’s lifestyle
in a certain country, it is often used to determine the value of the country’s good and
services produced within the territory given a certain time period. Higher country income
is brought upon by high productivity, often an indicator of presence of technology.
Backtracking the Human Condition
Technology’s initial promises proved to be true, regardless of its ramifications. All
in all, the human condition improved, only if by improving we measure the level of comfort,
various scientific breakthroughs, and improved lifestyles of those who had the luxury to
afford to do so. Different machineries aid in prolonging lives- assisting those with
disabilities, honing efficiency in industrial workplaces, and even exploring the universe for
places we can thrive once all the Earth’s resources are depleted.
As to the initial aims, it appears that things really did not much differ. Some places
in the world are still battling for their daily survival- diseases, tribe wars, lack of habitable
territories, and competitions on resources are several factors contributing to such. People
still wage wars on the basis of races, belief, and abundance of resources and/or territory;
except that now, they are able to inflict such in a global scale. A lot of people still subscribe
to religion in explaining things that they do not know.
It seems that the human condition, although more sophisticated, is nothing but a
rehashed version of its former self. Nothing much has changed since then, and it appears
that nothing will change in the times to come if we fail to shift our view elsewhere. While
it is true that technology offered us one compelling notion of the truth and the good, we
should be staunch in our resolve if we want to know the real one
Week 9: Human Flourishing in Progress and De-development
Before we proceed to the topic the good life, let us discuss the human flourishing
in progress and de-development for us to understand on how we will attain a good life
despite the challenges we face in our modern world, particularly science and technology.
The Human Flourishing in Progress and De-development
Despite efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor countries, in 2015
a report stated that the gap in growth and development just keeps on widening. Although
there is no standard measure of inequality, the report claimed that most indicators
suggest widening of the growth gap slowed during the financial crisis of 2007 but is now
growing again. The increasing inequality appears paradoxical having in mind the efforts
that had been poured onto the development programs designed to assist poor countries
to rise from absent to slow progress.
With this backdrop and the context of unprecedented scientific and technological
advancement and economic development, humans must ask themselves whether they
are indeed flourishing, individually or collectively. If development efforts to close out the
gap between the rich and poor countries have failed, is it possible to confront the
challenges of development through a nonconformist framework?
To better understand this topic, here is an article by Jason Hickel, an
anthropologist at the London School of Economics, criticizes the failure of growth and
development efforts to eradicating poverty seven decades ago. More importantly, he
offers a nonconformist perspective toward growth and 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 standardized unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what
the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada
consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times
their fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that instead
of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get rich
countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at societies
where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as
basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient
living.
How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years
and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a
mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy 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 lowand middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest
happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that
of the US.
In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as
appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their
excesses.
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global
south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent
consumer research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe
overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should
strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise our happiness. People sense
there is something wrong with the dominant model of economic progress and they are hungry for
an alternative narrative.
The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language.
They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development, which are
technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are
repulsive because they run against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress,
and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to stop moving positively thorough
life, to stop learning, improving, growing.
Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in
the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need to
reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward
quality instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing
amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a
measure is not going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.
Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organizing alternative visions around
the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own tradition of reflection
on the good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in
his book How Much is Enough? where they lay out the possibility of interventions such as banning
advertising, a shorter working week and a basic income, all of which would improve our lives while
reducing consumption.
Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the
laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is also
a development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate,
as food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th
century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or
imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of
understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.
Source: Hickel, J. (2015, Sep 23). Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘dedevelop’
rich
countries.
The
Guardian.
Retrieved
from https://www.theguardian.com/global-developmentprofessionalsnetwork/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-developrich-countries-sdgs.
To enhance your learning, watch these films which pertain to human flourishing in
progress and de-development:
The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism
Week 10: The Good Life
The Good Life
Are we living the good life? This question is inarguably one universal human
concern. Everyone aims to lead a good life. Yet, what constitutes a happy and contented
life varies from person to person. Unique backgrounds, experiences, social contexts, and
even preferences make it difficult to subscribe to a unified standard on which to tease out
the meaning of ‘good life’. Thus, the prospect of a standard good life- one that resonates
across unique human experiences- is inviting.
Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and the Good Life
To answer the question, “Are we living the good life?”, necessary reflection must
be made on two things: first, what standard could be used to define “the good life”?
Second, how can the standard serve as a guide toward living the good life in the midst of
scientific progress and technological advancement?
In the documentary film, The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against
Scientism, C.S. Lewis posited that science must be guided by some ethical basis that is
not indicated by science itself. One such ethical basis is Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC, is probably the most important ancient
Greek philosopher and scientist. He was a student of Plato, who was then a student of
Socrates. Together, they were considered the ‘Big Three of Greek Philosophy’.
What is Nichomachean Ethics?





It is the fundamental basis of Aristotelian ethics consisting of ten books.
Originally, they were lecture notes written on scrolls when he taught at the
Lyceum.
It is widely believed that the lecture notes were compiled by or were dedicated
to one of Aristotle’s sons,
Alternatively, it is believed that the work was dedicated to Aristotle’s father who
was of the same name.
This book is abbreviated as NE or sometimes EN based on Latin version of the
name, is a treatise on the nature of moral life and human happiness based on the
unique essence of human nature. The NE is particularly useful in defining what
the good life is.
Everyone has a definition of what good is- getting a college degree, traveling
across the world, succeeding in a business venture, pursuing a healthy and active
lifestyle, or being a responsible parent. However, although everyone aims to achieve that
which is good, Aristotle posited two types of good. In NE Book 2 Chapter 2, Aristotle
explained that every action aims at some good. However, some actions aim at an
instrumental good while some aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the ultimate
good is better than the instrumental good for the latter is good as a means to achieving
something else or some other end while the former is good in itself.
Remember the following terms:
Ultimate/Intrinsic Good- the value is itself (Example: Happiness)
Instrumental/Extrinsic- in order to know the value, an action is needed to
reveal it (Example: Money, Justice)
Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good
What then is the ultimate good? Based on the contrast between the two types of good,
one could reflect on some potential candidates for the ultimate good. These are
situations to better understand the ultimate good.
Is pleasure an ultimate good?
You might aim for pleasure in the food you eat or in the experiences you
immerse yourselves into. Yet, while pleasure is an important human need, it can’t be
the ultimate good. Why? First, it is transitory- it passes. You might have been pleased
with the food you had for lunch, but you will be hungry again or will want something
else after a while. Second, pleasure does not encompass all aspects of life. You might be
pleased with an opportunity to travel but that may not make you feel good about leaving,
say, your studies or the pandemic we have been struggling now. So, is pleasure an
ultimate good? It’s not.
Is wealth an ultimate good?
Others might think that wealth is a potential candidate for the ultimate good, but
a critique of wealth would prove otherwise. Indeed, many, if not most, aim to be
financially stable, to be rich, or to be able to afford a luxurious life. However, it is very
common to hear people say that they aim to be wealthy insofar as it would help them
achieve some other goals. Elsewhere, it is also common to hear stories about people
who have become very wealthy but remain, by and large, unhappy with the lives they
lead. In this sense, wealth is just an intermediate good- that is, only instrumental. It is
not the ultimate good because it is not self-sufficient and does not stop one from aiming
for some other ‘greater’ good.
Is fame and honor an ultimate good?
Many people today seem motivated by a desire to be known- to be famous.
Others strive for honor and recognition. This is reflected by those people who use social
media to acquire large virtual following on the internet and wish to gain foothold on the
benefits that fame brings. Many people act according to how they think they will be
admired and appreciated by other people. However, these cannot constitute the
ultimate good, simply because they are based on the perception of others. Fame and
honor can never be good in themselves. If one’s definition of the good life is being popular
or respected, then the good life becomes elusive since it is based on the subjective
views of others.
Unlike pleasure, wealth, fame, and honor, happiness is the ultimate good. In Aristotelian
sense, happiness is “living well and doing well”. Among the Greeks, this is known
as eudaimonia from the root words eu meaning good and daimon meaning spirit.
Combining the root words, eudaimonia means happiness or welfare. More accurately,
others translate it as human flourishing or prosperity. Aristotle proposed two hallmarks
of eudaimonia, namely virtue and excellence. Thus, happiness in the sense of
eudaimonia has to be distinguished from merely living good. Eudaimonia transcends
all aspects of life for it is about living well in whatever one does.
Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?
Eudaimonia or happiness is unique to humans for it is a uniquely human
function. It is achieved only through a rationally directed life. Aristotle’s notion of
a tripartite soul as summarized in the diagram below nested hierarchy of the functions
and activities of the soul. The degrees and functions of the soul are nested, such
that the one which has a higher degree of soul has all of the lower degrees. Thus, on the
nutritive degree, all living things for example plants, animals and humans require
nourishment and have the ability to reproduce. On the sensitive degree, only animals
and humans have the ability to move and perceive. Finally, on the rational degree, only
humans are capable of theorethical and practical functions. Following this, humans
possess the nutritive, sensitive, and rational degrees of the soul. More importantly, only
humans are capable of a life guided by reason. Because this so, happiness too, is a
uniquely human function for it can only be achieved through a rationally directed life.
Aristotle’s Tripartite Soul
Arete and Human Happiness
Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For
Aristotle, eudaimonia is only possible by living a life of virtue.
What is Arete?

It is a Greek term defined as “excellence of any kind” and can also mean “moral
virtue”. A virtue is what makes one function well. Aristotle suggested two types of
virtue: intellectual virtue and moral virtue.
Intellectual virtue- it is achieved through education, time, and experience. Key
intellectual virtues are wisdom, which guides ethical behavior, and understanding,
which is gained from scientific endeavors and contemplation. Wisdom and
understanding are achieved through formal and non-formal means. Intellectual virtues
are acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills as much as those knowledge
and skills taught and learned in formal institutions.
Moral Virtue- it is achieved through habitual practice. Some key moral virtues are
generosity, temperance, and courage. Aristotle explained that although the capacity
for intellectual virtue is innate, it is brought into completion by practice. It is by
repeatedly being unselfish that one develops the virtue of generosity. It is by repeatedly
resisting and foregoing every inviting opportunity that one develops the virtue of
temperance. It is by repeatedly exhibiting the proper action and emotional response in
the face of danger that one develops the virtue of courage. By and large, moral virtue
is like a skill. A skill is acquired only through repeated practice. Everyone is capable of
learning how to play the guitar because everyone has an innate capacity for intellectual
virtue, but not everyone acquires it because only those who devote time and practice
develop the skill of playing the instrument.



If one learns that eating too much fatty foods is bad for the health, he or she has to
make it a habit to stay away from this type of food because health contributes to living
well and doing well.
If one believes that too much use of social media is detrimental to human relationships
and productivity, he or she must regulate his or her use of social media and deliberately
spend more time with friends, family, and work than in virtual platform.
If one understands the enormous damage to the environment that plastic materials
bring, he or she must repeatedly forego the next plastic item he or she could do away
with. Good relationship dynamics and a healthy environment contribute to one’s
wellness, in how he or she lives and what he or she does.
With the given three situations above, both intellectual virtue and moral virtue
should be in accordance with reason to achieve eudaimonia. Indifference with these
virtues, for reasons that are only for one’s convenience, pleasure, or satisfaction, leads
humans away from eudaimonia.
What then is the good life?
Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of eudaimonia is the
state of being happy, healthy, and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives, and acts.
The path to the good life consists of the virtues of thought and character, which are
relative mediators between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. In his way, the
good life is understood as happiness brought about by living a virtuous life.
One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving
toward further progress and development in science and technology. In appraising the
goodness, the next medical procedure, the new social media trend, the latest mobile
device, or the upcoming technology for food safety, one must be guided by Aristotelian
virtues. Science and technology can be ruined by under-or-over-appreciation of the
scope and function it plays in the pursuit of the uniquely human experience of
happiness. Refusing science and technology altogether to improve human life is as
problematic as allowing it to entirely dictate reason and action without any regard for
ethical and moral standards. By imposing on science and technology an ethical
standard that is not dictated by itself, as C.S. Lewis proposed, not only will scientific
advancement and technological development flourish, but also the human person.
To enhance your learning, watch the documentary film entitled “That Sugar Film”
(2015)
Happiness as the Goal of a Good Life
In 18th century, John Stuart Mill declared the Greatest Happiness Principle by
saying that an action is right as far as it maximizes the attainment of happiness for the
greatest number of people. At a time when people were skeptical about claims on
metaphysical, people could not make sense of the human flourishing that Aristotle
talked about in the days of old. Mill said that individual happiness should be prioritized
and collectively dictates the kind of action that should be endorsed. Consider the
pronouncements against mining. When an action benefits the greatest number of
people, said action is deemed ethical. Does mining benefit than hurt the majority? Does
it offer more benefits rather than disadvantages? Does mining result in more people
getting happy than sad? If the answers to the said questions are in the affirmative, then
the said action, mining, is deemed ethical.
Through the ages, man has constantly struggled with the external world in order
to reach human flourishing. History has given birth to different schools of thought which
will be mentioned below, all of which aim for the good and happy life.
1. Materialism
Do material things make you happy?
The first materialists were the atomists in Ancient Greece. Democritus and Leucippus
led a school whose primary belief is that the world is made up of and is controlled by
the tiny indivisible units in the world called atomos or seeds. For Democritus and his
disciples, the world including human beings, is made up of matter. There is no need to
posit immaterial entities as sources of purpose. Atomos simply comes together
randomly to form the things in the world. As such, only material entities matter. In terms
of human flourishing, matter is what makes us attain happiness. We see this at work
with most people who are clinging on to material wealth as the primary source of the
meaning of their existence.
2. Hedonism
Are you the type of a happy-go-lucky person?
The hedonists, for their part, see the end goal of life in acquiring pleasure. Pleasure
has always been the priority of hedonists. For them, life is about obtaining and indulging
in pleasure because life is limited. The mantra of this school of thought is the
famous, “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die”. Led by Epicurus, this school
of thought also does not buy any notion of afterlife just like the materialists.
3. Stoicism
Have you encountered a certain point of your life that there are events which were
surprisingly happened out of your plans? It may be good or bad, Stoics discussed it as
“not within our control” and acceptance is a key for us to be happy.
Another school of thought led by Epicurus, the stoics espoused the idea that to
generate happiness, one must learn to distance oneself and be apathetic. The original
term, apatheia, precisely means to be indifferent. For the stoics, happiness can only be
attained by a careful practice of apathy. We should, in this worldview, adopt the fact that
some things are not within our control. The sooner we realize this, the happier we can
become.
4. Theism
Amidst the pandemic we are facing right now, we Filipinos have a strong faith with God
that this pandemic will end very soon. With that belief, everything will be at ease by
putting our trust unto Him.
Most people find their meaning of their lives using God as a fulcrum of their existence.
The Philippines, as a predominantly Catholic country, is a witness to how people base
their life goals and beliefs that hinged on some form of supernatural reality called
heaven. The ultimate basis of happiness for theists is the communion with God. The
world where we are in is only just a temporary reality where we have to maneuver
around while waiting for the ultimate return to the hands of God
5. Humanism
We are the ones making our own destiny. The question is, are you happy with the life
you have?
Humanism as another school of thought espouses the freedom of man to carve his
own destiny and legislate his own laws, free from the shackles of a God that monitors
and controls. Inspired by the enlightenment in 17th century, humanists see themselves
not merely as stewards of the creation but as individuals who are in control of
themselves and the world outside them. This is the spirit of most scientists who thought
that the world is a place and space for freely unearthing the world in seeking for ways
on how to improve the lives of its inhabitants.
Scientists of today meanwhile are ready to confront more sophisticated attempts
at altering the world for the benefit of humanity. Some people now are willing to tamper
with time and space in the name of technology. Social media, as an example, has been
so far a very effective way of employing technology in purging time and space. Not very
long ago, communication between two people from two continents in the planet will
involve months of waiting for a mail to arrive. Seeing each other real time while talking
was virtually impossible. Now, communication between two people wherever they are,
is not just possible but easy. The internet and smart phones made real-time
communication possible not just between two people, but even with multiple people
simultaneously.
Whether or not we agree with these technological advancements, these are all
undertaken in the hopes of attaining the good life. The balance, however, between the
good life, ethics, and technology has to be attained.
To better understand what is meant by good life with these school of thoughts, read
the article provided below.
What is the Good life?
The various meanings of “living well”
By Emrys Westacott
What is “the good life”? This is one of the oldest philosophical questions. It has been
posed in different ways—How should one live? What does it mean to “live well”? —but
these are really just the same question. After all, everyone wants to live well, and no
one wants “the bad life.”
But the question isn’t as simple as it sounds. Philosophers specialize in unpacking
hidden complexities, and the concept of the good life is one of those that needs quite
a bit of unpacking.
The Moral Life
One basic way we use the word “good” is to express moral approval. So, when we say
someone is living well or that they have lived a good life, we may simply mean that they
are a good person, someone who is courageous, honest, trustworthy, kind, selfless,
generous, helpful, loyal, principled, and so on.
They possess and practice many of the most important virtues. And they don’t spend
all their time merely pursuing their own pleasure; they devote a certain amount of time
to activities that benefit others, perhaps through their engagement with family and
friends, or through their work, or through various voluntary activities.
This
moral
conception
of
the
good
life
has
had
plenty
of
champions. Socrates and Plato both gave absolute priority to being a virtuous person
over all other supposedly good things such as pleasure, wealth, or power.
In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias, Socrates takes this position to an extreme. He argues that
it is much better to suffer wrong than to do it; that a good man who has his eyes gouged
out and is tortured to death is more fortunate than a corrupt person who has used
wealth and power dishonorably.
In his masterpiece, the Republic, Plato develops this argument in greater detail. The
morally good person, he claims, enjoys a sort of inner harmony, whereas the wicked
person, no matter how rich and powerful he may be or how many pleasures he enjoys,
is disharmonious, fundamentally at odds with himself and the world.
It is worth noting, though, that in both the Gorgias and the Republic, Plato bolsters his
argument with a speculative account of an afterlife in which virtuous people are
rewarded and wicked people are punished.
Many religions also conceive of the good life in moral terms as a life lived according to
God’s laws. A person who lives this way—obeying the commandments and performing
the proper rituals—is pious. And in most religions, such piety will be rewarded.
Obviously, many people do not receive their reward in this life.
But devout believers are confident that their piety will not be in vain. Christian martyrs
went singing to their deaths confident that they would soon be in heaven. Hindus expect
that the law of karma will ensure that their good deeds and intentions will be rewarded,
while evil actions and desires will be punished, either in this life or in future lives.
The Life of Pleasure
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was one of the first to declare, bluntly, that
what makes life worth living is that we can experience pleasure. Pleasure is enjoyable,
it’s fun, it’s...well...pleasant! The view that pleasure is the good, or, to put I another way,
that pleasure is what makes life worth living, is known as hedonism.
The word “hedonist,” when applied to a person, has slightly negative connotations. It
suggests that they are devoted to what some have called the “lower” pleasures such
as sex, food, drink, and sensual indulgence in general.
Epicurus was thought by some of his contemporaries to be advocating and practicing
this sort of lifestyle, and even today an “epicure” is someone who is especially
appreciative of food and drink. But this is a misrepresentation of Epicureanism.
Epicurus certainly praised all kinds of pleasures. But he didn’t advocate that we lose
ourselves in sensual debauchery for various reasons:



Doing so will probably reduce our pleasures in the long run since over-indulgence tends
to cause health problems and limit the range of pleasure we enjoy.
The so-called “higher” pleasures such as friendship and study are at least as important
as “pleasures of the flesh."
The good life has to be virtuous. Although Epicurus disagreed with Plato about the
value of pleasure, he fully agreed with him on this point.
Today, this hedonistic conception of the good life is arguably dominant in Western
culture. Even in everyday speech, if we say someone is “living the good life,” we
probably mean that they enjoying lots of recreational pleasures: good food, good wine,
skiing, scuba diving, lounging by the pool in the sun with a cocktail and a beautiful
partner.
What is key to this hedonistic conception of the good life is that it
emphasizes subjective experiences. On this view, to describe a person as “happy”
means that they “feel good,” and a happy life is one that contains many “feel good”
experiences.
The Fulfilled Life
If Socrates emphasizes virtue and Epicurus emphasizes pleasure, another great Greek
thinker, Aristotle, views the good life in a more comprehensive way. According to
Aristotle, we all want to be happy.
We value many things because they are a means to other things. For instance, we
value money because it enables us to buy things we want; we value leisure because it
gives us time to pursue our interests. But happiness is something we value not as a
means to some other end but for its own sake. It has intrinsic value rather than
instrumental value.
So for Aristotle, the good life is a happy life. But what does that mean? Today, many
people automatically think of happiness in subjectivist terms: To them, a person is
happy if they are enjoying a positive state of mind, and their life is happy if this is true
for them most of the time.
There is a problem with this way of thinking about happiness in this way, though.
Imagine a powerful sadist who spends much of his time gratifying cruel desires. Or
imagine a pot-smoking, beer-guzzling couch potato who does nothing but sit around all
day watching old TV shows and playing video games. These people may have plenty
of pleasurable subjective experiences. But should we really describe them as “living
well”?
Aristotle would certainly say no. He agrees with Socrates that to live the good life one
must be a morally good person. And he agrees with Epicurus that a happy life will
involve many and varied pleasurable experiences. We can’t really say someone is
living the good life if they are often miserable or constantly suffering.
But Aristotle’s idea of what it means to live well is objectivist rather than subjectivist. It
isn’t just a matter of how a person feels inside, although that does matter. It’s also
important that certain objective conditions be satisfied.
For instance:






Virtue: They must be morally virtuous.
Health: They should enjoy good health and reasonably long life.
Prosperity: They should be comfortably off (for Aristotle this meant affluent enough so
that they don’t need to work for a living doing something that they would not freely
choose to do.)
Friendship: They must have good friends. According to Aristotle human beings are
innately social; so the good life can’t be that of a hermit, a recluse, or a misanthrope.
Respect: They should enjoy the respect of others. Aristotle doesn’t think that fame or
glory is necessary; in fact, a craving for fame can lead people astray, just as the desire
for excessive wealth can. But ideally, a person’s qualities and achievements will be
recognized by others.
Luck: They need good luck. This is an example of Aristotle’s common sense. Any life
can be rendered unhappy by tragic loss or misfortune.

Engagement: They must exercise their uniquely human abilities and capacities. This
is why the couch potato is not living well, even if they report that they are content.
Aristotle argues that what separates human beings from the other animals is the human
reason. So, the good life is one in which a person cultivates and exercises their rational
faculties by, for instance, engaging in scientific inquiry, philosophical discussion, artistic
creation, or legislation. Was he alive today he might well include some forms of
technological innovation?
If at the end of your life you can check all these boxes then you could reasonably claim
to have lived well, to have achieved the good life. Of course, the great majority of people
today do not belong to the leisure class as Aristotle did. They have to work for a living.
But it’s still true that we think the ideal circumstance is to be doing for a living what you
would choose to do anyway. So, people who are able to pursue their calling are
generally regarded as extremely fortunate.
The Meaningful Life
Recent research shows that people who have children are not necessarily happier than
people who don’t have children. Indeed, during the child-raising years, and especially
when children have turned into teenagers, parents typically have lower levels of
happiness and higher levels of stress. But even though having children may not make
people happier, it does seem to give them the sense that their lives are more
meaningful.
For many people, the well-being of their family, especially their children and
grandchildren, is the main source of meaning in life. This outlook goes back a very long
way. In ancient times, the definition of good fortune was to have lots of children who do
well for themselves.
But obviously, there can be other sources of meaning in a person’s life. They may, for
instance, pursue a particular kind of work with great dedication: e.g. scientific research,
artistic creation, or scholarship. They may devote themselves to a cause: e.g. fighting
against racism or protecting the environment. Or they may be thoroughly immersed in
and engaged with some particular community: e.g. a church, a soccer team, or a
school.
The Finished Life
The Greeks had a saying: Call no man happy until he’s dead. There is wisdom in this.
In fact, one might want to amend it to: Call no man happy until he’s long dead. For
sometimes a person can appear to live a fine life, and be able to check all the boxes—
virtue, prosperity, friendship, respect, meaning, etc.—yet eventually be revealed as
something other than what we thought they were.
A good example of this Jimmy Saville, the British TV personality who was much
admired in his lifetime but who, after he died, was exposed as a serial sexual predator.
Cases like this bring out the great advantage of an objectivist rather than a subjectivist
notion of what it means to live well. Jimmy Saville may have enjoyed his life. But surely,
we would not want to say that he lived the good life. A truly good life is one that is both
enviable and admirable in all or most of the ways outlined above.
Source: Westacott, E. (2018). What is the good
from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-good-life-4038226
Week 11: When Technology and Humanity Cross
life?
Retrieved
The worry begins when we question ourselves that what if we will be replaced by
robots 10 years from now? Where does humanity stand in the face of these
technological advancements?
The roles played by technology these days are very crucial not only to a few but
also to everyone. In one way or another, each person in the society is directly or indirectly
affected by technology whether he wills it or not. In fact, most people survive their
everyday lives with great reliance to the different technological advancements already
available to the masses. While there may be some who would claim that their lives are
not greatly affected by technology, the fact cannot be denied that technology is already
an inevitable part of the society.
It is with great effort that people were able to achieve such great inventions. It
makes life so much easier and more convenient than ever before. It can clearly be seen
from the simplest task at home to the most complicated ones inside the office or
laboratory. Technology these days enjoys such fame and glory because of the many
different benefits it brings to mankind. Some would even say that it does not only bring
convenience but also pleasure and happiness to people. This is because of the different
leisure activities that technology can offer to people. For example, it allows people to listen
to good music wherever they are. Another is, it allows them to communicate with their
loved ones anywhere in the world; but most of all, it allows them to surf and play games
anytime, anywhere.
The act of pinpointing a single activity that does not in any way require the use of
technology has become very hard because almost all activities that humans perform
already require the assistance of some kind of technological advancement. But this is not
all, for there are people who would even argue that technology has become a necessity
and no longer a want. At present, people work very hard in order to save money to buy
these necessities while in the past, people only used their money for the things that would
help them survive like food, housing, and clothing. In effect, anything outside these
categories was considered a luxury. However, that is no longer the case at present.
In general, technology keeps on progressing due to not only the changing times
and environment but also to the ever-progressing mind of mankind. It would not be
possible for all these technological advancements to exist if it were not for the brilliance,
creativeness, and power of the mind. However, it is also important to note that anything
too much is bad. The same problem is faced by technology. Although it has been very
helpful to people, it is still not immune to criticisms and backlash. Various ethical dilemmas
have been identified throughout time involving the use of different technological devices
and its effects to humanity. Usually, different problems arise when either the technological
device available is misused or if in the first place, it was invented to produce bad results.
People who are aware of the possible dangers of the use or misuse of technology are not
keeping still. They lay these dilemmas for the public to see and realize what they are in
for.
There are lots of technological advancements that are available in our modern
world today and in this module, we mainly focus on the three most commonly used
(Television, Mobile Phone, and Computers/Laptops).
Television


According to Kantar Media, one of the most trusted television audience
measurement providers, in the Philippines, 92 percent of urban homes and
70 percent or rural homes own at least one television set that’s why
television remains to be the ultimate medium for advertisement placements.
Filipinos have a big fascination with televisions because according to
Kantar Media, the current count of households with television set already
reached 15.135 million and counting.
How were televisions invented?

Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, a German Student, in the late 1800s was
successful in his attempt to send images through wires with the aid of a
rotating metal disk. This invention was then called the “electric
telescope” that had 18 lines of resolution.
Electric Telescope

In 1907, two inventors Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton (left) who was
an English scientist and Boris Rosing (right) who was a Russian scientist,
created a new system of television by using the cathode ray tube in addition
to mechanical scanner system.
o
cathode ray
tube with mechanical scanner system
This success story gave rise to two types of television systems, namely, mechanical
and electronic television. These experiments inspired other scientists to improve the
previous inventions, which led to the modern television we have today. However, it is
important to remember that several scientists and several experiments were performed
first before finally achieving the modern television at present.
Mobile Phones

o

We Filipinos love to use our mobile phones anywhere, anytime. We use it for
different purposes other than communication. More than half of the Filipino population
own at least one mobile phone regardless of type.



In 2010, global research agency Synovate conducted a survey and declared 67
percent product ownership in the country. In fact, it was also claimed that mobile phones
are considered a must-have among young Filipinos.
Ipsos Media Atlas Philippines Nationwide Urban 2011-2012 survey regarding the
love of Filipino people in using their mobile phones resulted that one in every three
Filipinos cannot live without a mobile phone. In other words, 30% of the Philippine urban
population nationwide said that mobile phones are necessities in life.
Philippine streets are full of people using their mobile phones. Not only this, there are
some Filipinos who even own more than one mobile phone.
Brief Background of Mobile Phones




o




On April 3, 1973, Martin Cooper, a senior engineer at Motorola, made
the world’s first mobile phone call.
He called their rival telecommunications company and properly
informed them that he was making the call from a mobile phone.
The mobile phone used by Cooper weighed 1.1 kilograms and this
device was capable of a 30-minute talk time. However, it took 10 hours to
charge.
In 1983, Motorola made their first commercial mobile phone available to
the public. It was known as the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X.



martin cooper
Computers/Laptops

o



Some Filipino families own more than one computer or laptop while some own at least
one computer or laptop. However, the number of computers or laptops sold per year may
not be as high as the number of mobile phones and television sets because of the relative
high cost of computers.
In 2010, 3.6 trillion was the estimated total value output of all manufacturing
establishments. Semi-conductor devices and other electronic components took more
than half of the total value output of all manufacturing establishments. 5.4 % of the total
value output came from computers and peripheral equipment and accessories.
In line with growing number of computer and laptop sales, there has also been a
growing number of Internet users in the Philippines.
Charles Babbage- a 19th century English Mathematics professor, who designed the
Analytical Engine which was used as the basic framework of the computers even until
the present time. In general, computers can be classified into three generations. Each
generation of the computer was used for a certain period of time and each gave people
a new and improved version of the previous one.
(Note: Before, the first design of computer was so big that it could occupy whole floors of
buildings. It was not long before people started dreaming that they could bring their
devices to any place they wished. Wish granted because in April 1981, the first true
portable computer was released. It was called the Osborne 1.)
Osborne 1 Computer
Here are some facts about Filipinos and their use of gadgets and the Internet:

o





Mobile phone subscription is at 119 million
Filipinos spend approximately 3.2 hours on mobile and 5.2 hours on desktop daily.
Currently, the Philippines has one of the highest digital populations in the world.
There are now 47 million active Facebook accounts in the Philippines
The Philippines is the fastest-growing application market in Southeast Asia.
Roles Played by Television, Mobile Phones, and Computers/Laptops
1. Television



It is mainly used as a platform for advertisements and information
dissemination. For example, speeches of VIPs, important interview of
politicians, and launching of rockets and space crafts, which are directly
telecast will make us feel as if the entire world has become our next-door
neighbor. Another example is the news that is daily broadcasted for us to
be aware of the happenings around us. As easy as that, we will be
connected to the world at the comfort of our homes.
It is the most used avenue by different advertising companies not only in
the Philippines but also all over the world and it is still one of the most used
technological devices up until today. This is because television is able to
attract the audiences of all age groups, literate and illiterate and of all the
strata of the society. It has been also able to influence the people living in
remote areas of our country as its outreach has covered the remotest
villages and tribal pockets. Through this, it would bring about awareness
among the people of sociological problems and make them conscious of
national goals which will play a vital role in cultivating civic consciousness
and respect for law and public morality.
It also serves as a recreational activity and good stress reliever to most
families, specifically to Filipino families. This has been one of our family
bonding since then. Through viewing as one family, we will be able to share
thoughts with each other and can be considered as a leisure time for
everyone. Most Filipino families love to watch comedy movies in television
that will make them laugh and relieve stress from work. Some also watch
educational movies which is suited for all especially those families with kids.
That is why television plays a big role in connecting every Filipino family
because through this technological advancement, it brings us closer to our
loved ones.
2. Mobile Phones

Primarily used for communication and it can offer services like texting and
calling and additional features of mobile phones today



Some people use their mobile phones to surf the Internet and to take
pictures more than to text or call people that’s why people prefer smart
phones for its additional features.
It is like an all-in-one device. It is very portable and convenient because it
can fit into any space, may it be inside the pocket or bag. This is a good
example that we can even use our mobile phones in our work. It may help
us access anytime the important things we want to search with the aid of
the Internet. Unlike televisions and computers/laptops, mobile phones are
easy to bring anywhere. The good thing about mobile phones is it’s almost
similar with the features of television and computers/laptops, however, has
also its limitations that other gadgets can offer
In Japan, mobile phone companies provide immediate notification of
earthquakes and other natural disasters to their customers free of charge.
In the event of an emergency, disaster response crews can locate trapped
or injured people using the signals from their mobile phones or the small
detonator of flare in the battery of every cell phone; an interactive menu
accessible through the phone's Internet browser notifies the company if the
user
is
safe
or
in
distress.
(Retrievedfrom:https://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/132870/cell_
phones/importance_of_mobile_phones.html)
3. Computers/Laptops





It has a wide keyboard and screen compared to mobile phones that’s why
it is easy to type.
Mouse and a touchpad are made available to easily maneuver than
mobile phones.
For youth and those who love to play different computer games, personal
computers or laptops are really the better choice because these allow them
to play with comfort and convenience.
Laptops/computers can help students write papers more easily as well.
Typing can make the writing process go faster, and the tools in word
processing software make it easier for students to edit their work. By
writing on laptops instead of a desktop computer, students can work at
home, in the library or during work time in class. A project to give students
laptops in the classroom in Maine resulted in an increase in student writing
achievement, according to The National Writing Project. Eighty percent of
students in the project said they would rather use their laptop to do their
work and were more likely to edit their work using their laptop. In addition,
75 percent said that laptops helped them to be better organized, while 70
percent said laptops helped them improve the quality of their
work. (Retrieved from: https://education.seattlepi.com/benefits-laptopsstudents-3053.html)
Group work is integral to student success. Students who learn how to
work in a team and benefit from the strengths of other students in the group
learn material in a new way. Laptops facilitate group work by allowing
students to meet at any location -- whether it's a library, school room or a
student's home -- and access all the materials they may need, including
classroom notes, journal articles, online research or software for creating
videos, slide shows or other items they may need for presentations.
Wherever students have access to the Internet, they can also easily share
files
with
one
another. (Retrieved
from: https://education.seattlepi.com/benefits-laptops-students-
Week 11: Ethical Dilemmas Faced by these Technological
Advancements
While it’s true that these technological devices are useful and beneficial, the fact
remains that there are several dilemmas faced by these “necessities”. Here are the
following ethical dilemmas that these technologies may bring:
1.
Children becoming unhealthy with the use of technology
Are you becoming dependent on technology just like these kids? What might you
get from too much use of gadgets?
Most parents would argue that these devices make their children addicted and
unhealthy. This is because of the fact that people who are fixated on these technological
advancements start and end their day by using such devices. They have a great tendency
to sit and chill all day long without doing anything productive in their homes, thus making
them unhealthy because they do not just skip meals sometimes but also lack exercise or
any bodily movements.
For example, those who love to watch television shows stay in front of the
television for more than six hours a day while those who love to surf the Internet or play
computer games stay on their laptops, computers or mobile phones for more than a half
day. These people have the tendency to be unaware of the time because they are so
engrossed with the use of technological device. In fact, if they get disturbed, there is a
great chance that they will get mad or annoyed. Moreover, these are the same people
who are more likely to experience alienation because they no longer take time to get out
of their houses and mingle with other people.
On this first dilemma, it is really concerning to know that there are people who
develop different kinds of sickness because of too much use of technological devices.
Not only this, it also causes them to become reclusive, alienating themselves from other
people. Although some would argue that technology brings people together, it can also
be argued that this is not always the case in real world because it may bring them virtually
closer but not physically or personally. In fact, there are people who are friends, for
example, only on social media but not in real life. This just shows that there are things
that technology claims to do but in reality, does not. It is for these reasons why there are
people who call for the establishment of ethics of technology. This subcategory of ethics
will in one way or another guide people on how technology ought to be used in order to
prevent abuse and other unfortunate results.
The word “responsibility” in the sense of being accountable for and accountable
to is very appropriate to the ethics of technology because it makes each and every person
in the scientific-technological development a proxy with reference to one another. In other
words, each person must indicate the priorities, values, norms, and principles that
constitute the grounds for one’s actions and define one’s contribution to the scientifictechnological event. The ethics of responsibility focuses on the positive rather than
negative. Instead of asking “What ought not to be allowed?” ask “What ought to be
allowed?” To put it in another way, people who are part of the scientific development
ought to let the public know the good in their respective technological contribution/s. in
this way, the people will have an idea how the devices ought to be used in order to
maximize their positive results.
2.
Moral dilemma
Technology is accessible to anyone. Can you imagine your brothers/sisters at an
early age were exposed already to the use of technology?
People, especially the children who are not capable yet of rationally deciding for
themselves what is right or wrong, are freely exposed to different things on television,
mobile phones, laptops, or computers. Due to the availability and easy access to the
Internet, they can just easily search the web and go to different websites without
restrictions. This allows them to see, read, or hear things which are not suitable for their
very young age. This makes them very vulnerable to character change and can greatly
affect the way they view the world and the things around them.
In this sense, moral dilemma can be a danger to the children brought by
technology. Why? Moral dilemma is defined as a conflict between what is the right or
wrong decision to be made in particular situations or whether an action will have good or
bad consequences. In the context that these children are not yet capable to decide for
themselves and determine what is right or wrong, they tend to acquire both good and bad
consequences. Good consequences like for example, at an early age, they will be
corrected and properly educated by their parents on how these technologies should be
properly used and pose an awareness the next time they encounter these gadgets. On
the other hand, the children will also be prone to bad consequences because at an early
age, they are already exposed to these technological advancements where in fact they
should be more of interpersonal activities with the family and should be developing their
skills and talents at this age. The consequence is later on when they grow older, they
might be lacking in some parts of their developmental growth that will lead to misbehavior.
However, on this second dilemma, neither the people in the scientific world nor
the children are blameworthy because first, the children are not yet capable of rationally
deciding for themselves what is good and what is bad. Second, even if creators of these
technologies went out of their way to inform children of the pros and cons of these
technological contributions, it would still be useless because the children have no capacity
to understand them yet. So, in this dilemma, the ones to be blamed are the adults who
allowed the children to have access to such devices in the first place without any
supervision. It is the recklessness and overconfidence of the adults that cause the
character change in children. However, we should not be putting blames into anyone else
now, instead, we should always be there to supervise our youngsters and assist them in
any technological endeavor they might be in or better, limit them in using any gadgets.
Week 12: Robotics and Humanity
The International Federation of Robotics (IFR) and United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) made it their task to formulate a working definition for
service robots. A robot is an actuated mechanism programmable in two or more axes with
a degree of autonomy, moving within environment, to perform intended tasks.
Autonomy is the ability to perform intended tasks based on current state and sensing
without human intervention.

A service robot is a robot that performs useful tasks for humans or equipment excluding
industrial automation application.
At your service! Robots are now made today to aide and assist humans in the
form of service.
Note: A robot may be classified according to its intended application as an industrial
robot or a service robot.

A personal service robot or a service robot for personal use is a service robot used for
a noncommercial task, usually by laypersons.
Robots as humans’ friend? If not for service, robots are made to be one’s friend
and will be there anytime.
Examples are domestic servant robot, automated wheelchair, personal mobility
assist robot, and pet exercising robot.

A professional service robot or a service robot for professional use is a service robot
used for a commercial task, usually operated by a properly trained operator
Operator – a person designated to start, monitor, and stop the intended operation of
a robot or a robot system.
Look! Robots are on the go to be people’s customer representative. This is how
they can professionally act.
Other examples are cleaning robot for public places, delivery robot in offices or
hospitals, firefighting robot, rehabilitation robot, and surgery robot in hospitals
Germany was one of the first countries to develop service robots. As part of the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research’s “Service Robotics Innovation Lead
Initiative”, it sponsored a collaborative project called DESIRE (Deutsche Servicerobotik
Initiative- Germany Service Robotics Initiative) which was launched on October 1, 2005.
The following are the DESIRE objectives:


To achieve a technological edge toward attaining key functions and
components that are suited for everyday use.
To create a reference architecture for mobile manipulation


To promote the convergence of technologies through integration into a
common technology platform
To conduct pre-competition research and development activities for new
products and technology transfer in start-up enterprises in the field of
service robotics
Some of the expected work to be performed by DESIRE are the following:
1. “Clear up the kitchen table” – all objects on top of the kitchen table will be moved
to where they belong.
2. “Fill the dishwasher” – the dirty dishes will be sorted correctly into the dishwasher.
3. “Clear up this room” – all objects that are not in their proper places will be moved
to where they belong.
The earliest conception of robots can be traced around 3000 B.C. from the
Egyptians. Their water clocks used human figurines to strike the hour bells. This
mechanical device was built to carry out specific physical task regularly.
Water clocks of Egyptians manipulated by robots
From that time on, different machines were already built that displayed the same
mechanism and characteristics as the robots in the present. For example, there was a
wooden pigeon that could fly, a talking doll, steam-powered robots, and hydraulicallyoperated statues that could speak and gesture. However, the earliest robots as people
know them were created in the early 1950s by George Devol. “Unimate” was his first
invention from the words “Universal Automation”. Unfortunately, his attempt to sell his
product to the industry did not succeed. After Unimate, several robots were also invented
which were better versions of the previous ones. Ever since, people never stopped their
quest in the field of robotics.
Roles Played by Robotics
Robots play different roles not only in the lives of the people but also in the society
as a whole. They are primarily used to ease the workload of mankind and were invented
to make life more efficient and less stressful. Just like people living in the society, robots
also have their own set of rules and characteristics that define what a good robot is. These
laws were formulated by Isaac Asimov back in the 1940s, when he was thinking of the
ethical consequences of robots.
LAW ONE: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm.
LAW TWO: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such
orders would conflict with the First Law.
LAW THREE: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not
conflict with the First or Second Law.
Week 12: Ethical Dilemma/s Faced by Robotics
1. SAFETY- Who should be held accountable if someone’s safety is compromised by a
robot? Who should be blamed, the robot, the agent using the robot, or the maker/inventor
of the robot? It is important to know who should be blamed and who should be held
responsible if such thing happens.
2. EMOTIONAL COMPONENT- What if robots become sentient? Should they be granted
robot rights? Should they have their own set of rights to be upheld, respected, and
protected by humans? This may seem a little absurd as of the moment, but looking at
how fast technology progress nowadays, it is not completely impossible for robots to
develop emotions. It is interesting to know how people would react if the time comes when
robots can already feel pain and pleasure. Would they act differently or not at all? The
question now is, are you ready when that time comes?
In the field of robotics, there are the so-called partial autonomy and full
autonomy. Partial autonomy includes active human-robot interaction while full
autonomy excludes active human robot interaction.in other words, a robot with full
autonomy can perform actions or activities without a master telling it what should be done
or what should be performed next.
Using Asimov’s laws for robots, it can be concluded that robots are ethical but
only if they strictly follow the laws formulated by Asimov ensure the safety of not only the
users of the technology but also the people around him. Remember that these service
robots are already available to the public; thus, they can already be found inside the
homes. Having said that, the safety of not only the owner of the technology but also all
the people inside the house should be the priority more than anything else. In other words,
the service robots only follow what their masters tell them to do with great consideration
to the laws formulated by Asimov. However, if the agent using the technology misuses
the robot to achieve personal agendas, then without a doubt, the agent should be held
accountable for any consequences it may bring. It is important to note that this is under
the assumption that the robot strictly followed the laws specified without any form of
deviation.
If the problems arise when the robot deviates from the laws specified, then the
maker or the inventor of the machine should be blameworthy. It just means that the robot
was not programmed very well because it violated the laws. Other problems may arise
when the machine develops the ability to think for itself. In this case, the one that should
be blame can both be the maker or inventor and the robot itself. This is because, in the
first place, the maker gave the robot the capacity to think for itself so he should be very
much aware of its possible consequences. To put it in another way, the maker
programmed the robot in such a way that it can already think for itself without an active
participation from a human being. In addition, since the robot thinks for itself, whatever
decision it makes and whatever consequence it may bring, the robot itself should be held
responsible.
For the second dilemma, it is just right for the robots to be given their own set of
rights should they develop the ability to feel different kinds of emotion. It can be argued
that the same thing happened with animals. Before, animals did not have their own set of
rights because people believed that they were not capable of having emotions. However,
after years of testing and experimenting, it was concluded that animals are indeed
capable of emotions. It is for the reason that people decided to give them rights that are
due to them. The same should be done to robots without any reservations. Should that
time come, they ought to be treated differently and they ought to have new laws to follow
in order to accommodate the new characteristic they have developed.
Week 12: Why the Future Does Not Need Us
Why the Future Does Not Need Us
Can you imagine a future without the human race? Do you think that robots and
machines can replace humans? Do you believe that there will come a time when human
existence will be at the mercy of robots and machines? It is also possible that medical
breakthroughs in the future may go terribly wrong that a strain of drug-resistant viruses
could wipe out the entire human race?
For some, imagining a future without humans is nearly synonymous to the end of
the world. Many choose not to speculate about a future where humans cease to exist
while the world remains. However, a dystopian society void of human presence is the
subject of many works in literature and film. The possibility of such society is also a
constant topic of debates.
William Nelson Joy- an American computer scientist and
chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, wrote an article in April 2000 for Wired magazine
entitled Why the Future doesn’t need us? In his article, Joy warned against the rapid
rise of new technologies. He explained that 21st century technologies- genetics,
nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR)- 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 more pressing because they do not require large facilities or
even rare raw materials- knowledge alone will make them potentially harmful to humans.
What are the arguments of Joy in his article?





He 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 could quickly get out
of control.
He also cautioned humans against overdependence on machines 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.
He voiced out his apprehension about the rapid increase of computer power which
made him concern about computers will eventually become more intelligent than humans,
thus ushering societies in dystopian visions, such as robot rebellions.
His concern was drawn 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 overreliance on antibiotics led to the great
paradox of emerging antibiotic-resistant strains of dangerous bacteria. The introduction
of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) to combat malarial mosquitoes, for instance,
only gave rise to malarial parasites with multi-drug resistant genes.
Joy’s arguments against 21st century technologies have received both criticisms
and expression shared concern. John Seeley Brown and Paul Duguid, in their article A
Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom Technofuturists, criticized 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 a 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.