Module 2: Science, Technology, and Society and the Human

Condition

Lesson 1: Technology is a way of revealing

This section tackles the essence of technology based on Martin Heidegger's
work, "The Question Concerning Technology". The section shall engage in the
process of questioning concerning technology. It discusses the key concepts related
to Heidegger’s work and how these concepts relate to an understanding of the
essence of technology.

Objectives:
At the end of this section, the students should be able to:
(1) differentiate the essence of technology and modern technology;
(2) discuss and demonstrate the dangerous modern technology; and
(3) explain why art is still saving the power of the modern technology
system.

At A Glance: Who is Martin Heidegger?

"The essence of technology is by no means anything technological" -Martin
Heidegger (1977)

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

- is widely acknowledged as one of the most
important philosophers of the 20th century.
- He was a German philosopher who was part
of the continental tradition of philosophy.
- In 1933, he joined the Nazi Party (NSDAP)
and remained a member until it was dismantled
toward the end of World War II. This resulted in
his dismissal from the University of Freiburg in
1949.
- Heidegger's membership to the Nazi Party
made him controversial.
 - His philosophical works are often described as complicated partly due to his
use of complex compound German words such as "Seinsvergessenheit
(Forgetful of Being), Bodenstandigkeit (Rootedness-in-Soil), and
Wesensverfassung (Essential Constitution).

The Essence of Technology

- It cannot be denied that science and technology are responsible for the way
society is consciously being modernized.
- 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.

The essence of technology can be captured in its definition. In his treaties,

The Question Concerning Technology, Martin Heidegger (1977) explains the
two widely embraced definitions of technology: (1) instrumental and (2)
anthropological.
1. Instrumental definition: technology is a means to an end technology is
not an end in itself it is a means to an end.
- In this context technology is viewed as a tool available to individuals,
groups and communities that desire to make an impact on society.
- Well technology is omnipresent knowing its function requires paying
attention to how humans use it as a means to an end.

2. Anthropological definition:
- Technology is a human activity
- Alternatively technology can also be defined as a human activity
because to achieve an end and to produce and use a means to an end is
by itself a human activity.

Technology as a Way of Revealing

● Heidegger stressed that the true can be pursued through the correct.
● In this scene, Heidegger envisioned technology as a way of revealing - a
mode of "bringing forth".
 ○ Bringing forth can be understood through the Ancient Greek
philosophical concept, poiesis, which refers to the act of bringing
something out of concealment.
○ The truth is understood through another Ancient Greek concept of
aletheia, which is translated as unclosedness, unconcealedness,
disclosure, or truth.
● Thus, for Heidegger, technology is a form of poeisis- a way of revealing that
unconceals aletheia or the truth.
● In philosophy, techne resembles the term episteme that refers to the human
ability to make and perform.
● In art, it refers to tangible and intangible aspects of life.

Technology as Poiesis: Does Modern Technology Bring Forth or Challenge

Forth?
● Heidegger, in The Question Concerning Technology, posited that both
primitive crafts and modern technology are revealing. Heidegger made a
clear distinction between technology and modern technology in that the
latter 'challenges' nature.
● Modern technology challenges nature by extracting something from it and
transforming, storing and distributing it.
● However, by digging deeper into Heidegger's question, it becomes clear that
the essence of modern technology is not to bring forth in the sense of
poeisis. Instead, Heidegger considers modern technology's way of revealing
as the way of challenging forth.
● Challenging forth reduces objects as standing-reserve or something to be
disposed of by those who in frame them- humans.
● Challenging forth as a result of modern technology are also evident in the
information age, such that greater control of information to profit from its
value gives rise to concerns about privacy and protection of human rights.

Enframing as Modern Technology's Way of Revealing

● In the sense that technology can be understood as a way of bringing forth the
truth in the sense of poieses, Heidegger distinguished the way of revealing
modern technology by considering it as a process of enframing.
 ● Enframing, according to Heidegger, is akin to two ways of looking at the
world: calculative thinking and meditative thinking.
○ In calculative thinking humans desert to put an order to nature to
better understand and control.
○ In meditative thinking humans allow nature to reveal itself to them
without the use of first or violence. one thinking is not necessarily
better than the other.
● Enframing, then, is a way of ordering (or framing) nature to better
manipulate it.
● Modern technology challenges humans to enframe nature. The role humans
take as an instrument of technology through framing 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.

The Danger of Technology

● The dangers of technology lie in how humans let themselves be consumed
by it.
● The Brazilian novelist, Paulo Coelho, once remarked that it is boastful for
humans to think that nature needs to be saved, whereas mother nature would
remain even if humans cease to exist.
● As mere tenants and earth, people must not allow themselves to be
consumed by technology lest they lose the essence of who they are as human
beings.
● Recognizing its dangers of technology requires critical and reflective
thinking on its use.
● The line has to be drawn between what constitutes a beneficial use of social
media and a dangerous one.
● However, the real threat of technology comes from its essence, not its
activities or products. The correct response to the danger of technology is
not simply dismissing technology altogether.
● Heidegger (1977) explained that people are delivered over to technology and
the worst possible way when they regard it as someone neutral.

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 grows also" (1977, page 14).
● Heidegger proposed art as the saving power and the way out of enframing.
"And art was simply called technique. It was a single, manifold revealing"
(1977, p.18).
● By focusing on art, people are able to see more clearly how art is embedded
in nature. Art encourages humans to think less from a calculative standpoint
where nature is viewed as an ordered system.
● Heidegger encapsulated this as follows:
○ Because the essence of technology is nothing technological, essential
reflection upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must
happen in a realm that is, on the one hand, akin to the essence of
technology, and, on the other, fundamentally different from it. Such a
realm is art. but certainly only if reflection and art for its part does not
shut its eyes to the constellation of truth after which we are
questioning (1977,p.19)

Questioning as the Piety of Thought

● Heidegger concluded his treatise on technology 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 (1977, p.19).
● Heidegger underscored the importance of questioning in the midst of
technology. Humans are consumed by technology when they are caught up
in enframing and fail to pay attention to the intricacies of technology, the
brilliance of the purpose of humankind, and the genius of humans to bring
forth the truth.
● Questioning is the piety of thought.
● Heidegger posited that it is through questioning that humans bear witness to
the crises that the complete preoccupation with technology brings,
preventing them from experiencing the essence of technology.
Lesson 2: Human Flourishing in Progress and
De-development

This section presents Jason Hickel’s development framework focused on

de-development. As a departure from traditional frameworks of growth and
development, Hickel’s concept of de-development is discussed as an alternative to
narrowing the gap between rich and poor countries. Thus, taking off from this
alternative framework, the section critiques human flourishing vis-a-vis progress in
science and technology.

Objectives:
At the end of this unit, the students should be able to:
1. discuss human flourishing in the context of progress in science and
technology;
2. explain de-development as a progress and development framework; and
3. differentiate between traditional frameworks of progress and development
and Hickel’s concept of de-development.

Thoughts to Ponder
A BBC report in 2015 stated that the gap in growth and development just
keeps on widening. The report claimed that most indicators suggest that the
widening of the growth gap slowed during the financial crisis of 2007 but is now
growing again.
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?
In the succeeding article, Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London
School of Economics, criticizes the failure of growth and development efforts to
eradicating poverty seven decades ago.
Lesson 3: The Good Life
This section introduces concepts from Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and
examines issues in contemporary science and technology using the same
philosophical lens. It tackles the important Aristotelian concepts of eudaimonia
and arete, and how these can be used to assess one’s relationship and and dealings
with science and technology. As such, the section also aims to answer the question,
“Are we living the good life?”

Objectives:
At the end of this section, the students should be able to:
1. define the idea of good life;
2. discuss Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia and arete; and
3. examine contemporary issues and come up with innovative and creative
solutions to contemporary issues guided by ethical standards leading to a
good life.

Are we living the good life? This question is inarguably oneuniversal 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 ‘the good life’. Thus, the prospect of
a standard of the good life- one that resonates across unique human experiences- is
inviting.

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and Good Life

“Are we living the good life?”
Necessary reflection must be made on two things:
(1) What standard could be used to define ‘the good life?’
(2) 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 dictated by science itself.”
 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.’
Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, the fundamental basis of Aristotelian
ethics, consists of ten books. Originally, they were lecture notes written on scrolls
when he taught at the Lyceum. The Nichomachean Ethics, abbreviated as NE or
sometimes EN based on the 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.
Although everyone aims to achieve that which is good, Aristotle posited two
types of good. In NE Book 2 Chapter 2, (NE2:2), Aristotle explained that every
action aims at some good. However, some actions aim at an instrumental good
while some aim at an intrinsic good.

Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good

What then is the ultimate good?
One might think that pleasure is the ultimate good. One aims for pleasure in
the food they eat or in the experiences they immerse themselves into. Yet, while
pleasure is an important human need, it can not be ultimate good. First, it is
transitory- it passes.
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 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.
Another candidate for the ultimate good is fame and honor. Many people
today seem to be 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 a large virtual following on the internet and wish to gain a foothold on
the benefits that fame brings..
In the Aristotelian sense, happiness is “living well and doing well” (NE 1:4).
Among the Greeks, this is known as eudaimonia, from the root word eu, meaning
good, and daimon, meaning spirit. Combining the root words, eudaimonia means
happiness or welfare. Aristotle proposed two hallmarks of eudaimonia, namely
virtue and excellence (NE 1:7). Thus, happiness in the sense of eudaimonia has to
be distinguished from merely living good.

Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?

Eudaimonia or happiness is unique to humans for it is uniquely human
function.

Arete and Human Happiness

Eudaimonia is what defines the good life.
For Aristotle, eudaimonia is only possible by living a life of virtue.
Arete, a Greek term, is defined as “excellence of any kind” and can also
mean “moral virtue”. Aristotle suggested two types of virtue: intellectual virtue and
moral virtue.
Intellectual virtue or virtue of thought 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.
Moral virtue or virtue of character is achieved through habitual practice.
Aristotle explained that although the capacity for intellectual virtue is innate, it is
brought into completion only by practice. It is by repeatedly resisting and
foregoing every inviting opportunity that one develops the virtue of temperance. It
is repeatedly exhibiting the proper action and emotional response in the face of
danger that one develops the virtue of courage.

Both intellectual virtue and moral virtue should be in accordance with reason to
achieve eudaimonia.

A virtue is ruined by any excess and deficiency in how one lives and acts. A
balance between two extremes is a requisite of virtue.
Consider the virtue of courage. Courage was earlier defined as displaying
the right action and emotional response in the face of danger. A person who does
not properly assess the danger and is totally without fear may develop the vice of
foolhardiness or rashness.

When 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.
One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving
toward further progress and development in science and technology. 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.

Lesson 4: When Technology and Humanity Cross

This section discusses quintessential documents that protect human rights
and ensure the well-being of the human person in the face of scientific and
technological developments. Indeed, if humans are to journey toward living the
good life, they have to make informed choices in dealing with science and
technology. Thus, this section draws from S. Romi Mukherjee’s proposals for
human rights-based approaches to science, technology, and development. It
reviews key principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO
Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers, and UNESCO
Declaration on the Use of Scientific Knowledge and how these international
documents position human rights in the intersection of technology and humanity.

Objectives:
At the end of this section, the students should be able to:
1. explain a human rights-based approach to science, technology, and
development;
2. identify key documents and their principles that ensures the well-being of
humans in the midst of scientific progress and technological development;
and
3. discuss the importance of upholding human rights in science, technology,
and development.

S. Romi Mukherjee, a senior lecturer in Political Theory and the History of

Religions at the Paris Institute of Political Studies, explained a human rights-based
approach to science, technology, and development as follows:
 “[It] seeks to place a concern for human rights at the heart of how the
international community engages with urgent global challenges. The UN
Development Programme characterizes this approach as one that ‘leads to better
and more sustainable outcomes by analyzing and addressing the inequalities,
discriminatory practices and unjust power relations which are often at the heart of
development problems. It puts the international human rights entitlements and
claims of the people (the ‘right-holder’) and the corresponding obligations of the
state (the ‘duty-bearer’) in the center of the national development debate, and it
clarifies the purpose of capacity development.’”
Mukherjee (2012) furthered that this approach identifies science as “a
socially organized human activity which is value-laden and shaped by the
organizational structures and procedures.”
Multiple international statutes, declarations, and decrees have been produced
to ensure well-being and human dignity. Mukherjee listed some of the most
important document that center on a human rights-based approach to science,
development, and technology, and their key principles:

Table 2: Useful documents for a human-rights based approach to science,

technology, and development

Document Key Principles

Universal Declaration of Human Rights This document affirms everyone’s right
(Article 27) to participate in and benefit from
scientific advances, and be protected
from scientific misuses. The right to the
benefits of science comes under the
domain of ‘culture,’ so it is usually
examined from a cultural rights
perspective.
UNESCO Recommendation on the This document affirms that all
Status of Scientific Researches - 1974 advances in scientific and technological
(Article 4) knowledge should solely be geared
towards the welfare of the global
citizens, and calls upon member states
to develop necessary protocol and
 policies to monitor and secure this
objective. Countries are asked to show
that science and technology are
integrated into policies that aim to
ensure a more humane and just society.
UNESCO Declaration on the Use of This document states, “Today, more
Scientific Knowledge - 1999 (Article that ever, science and its application are
33) indispensable for development. All
levels of government and the private
sector should provide enhanced support
for building up an adequate and evenly
distributed scientific and technological
capacity through appropriate education
and research programmes as an
indispensable foundation for economic,
social, cultural and environmentally
sound development. This is particularly
urgent for developing countries.” This
Declaration encompasses issues such as
pollution-free production, efficient
resource use, biodiversity protection,
and brain drains.

A human-rights based approach to science, technology, and development

sets the parameters for the appraisal of how science, technology, and development
promote human well-being.
Human rights should be integral to the journey toward the ultimate good.
Human rights are rights to sustainability, as Mukherjee put it.

Lesson 5: Why the Future Does Not Need Us

In April 2000, William Nelson Joy, an American computer scientist and
chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, wrote an article for Wired magazine entitled
Why the future doesn’t need us? In this article, Joy warned against the rapid rise of
technologies. He explained that 21st-century technologies- genetics,
nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR)- are becoming very powerful that they can
potentially bring new classes of accidents, threats, and abuses.
Joy argued that robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology pose
much greater threats than technological developments that have come before. He
particularly cited the ability of nanobots to self-replicate, which could quickly get
out of control. In the article, he cautioned humans against overdependence on
machines.
Joy also voiced out his apprehension about the rapid increase of computer
power. He was also concerned that computers will eventually become more
intelligent than humans, thus ushering societies into dystopian visions, such as
robot rebellions.
To eliminate his concerns, Joy drew from Theodore Kaczynski’s book,
Unabomber Manifesto, where Kaczynski describe that the unintended
consequences of the design and use 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.
Since the publication of the article, Joy’s arguments against 21st century
technologies have received both criticisms and expression of shared concern. For
one, John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid (2001), in their article A Response to Bill
Joy and 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.