Page | 1 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
Topic
Unit I: General Concepts and Historical Developments
Lesson 1: Introduction to Science, Technology and Society
Lesson 2: Historical Antecedents of Science and Technology
Lesson 3: Intellectual Revolutions and Society
Lesson 4: Science, Technology and Nation Building
Unit II. Science, Technology Society and the Human Condition
Lesson 5: Technology as a Way of Revealing
Lesson 6: Human Flourishing in Progress and De-Development
Lesson 7: The Good Life
Lesson 8: When Technology and Humanity Cross
Lesson 9: Why the Future Does Not Need Us?
Unit III. Specific Issues in Science, Technology and Society
Lesson 10: Information Age
Lesson 11: Biodiversity and a Healthy Society
Lesson 12: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Gene Therapy
Lesson 13: The Nanoworld
Lesson 14: Climate Change and the Energy Crises
Lesson 15: Environmental Awareness
Page | 2 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
UNIT II: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION
Lesson 6: Human Flourishing in Progress and De-Development
General Objectives:
At the end of the discussion, the students are expected to:
a) Discuss human flourishing in the context of progress in science and technology;
b) Explain de- development as a progress and development framework; and
c) Apply the concepts of de- development in areas applicable to their everyday lives.
Despite the effort to close the gap between the rich and poor countries, a BBC report in
2015 stated that the gap between the two just keeps widening and the efforts that has been
poured into development programs designed to assist poor countries to rise from absent or slow
progress were ineffective overall.
With this backdrop and in the context of continuous and unpredictable changes in science
and technology, humans must ask themselves whether they are indeed flourishing individually
or collectively. If efforts to close the gap between the rich and the poor where ineffective, isn’t it
time to use other non conventional approach to solve this problem?
The article below, written by Jason Hickel in 2015 criticizes the failure of development
programs in eradicating the gap between the poor and rich countries and offered a non-
traditional alternative perspective to solve this problem.
Forget “developing” poor countries, it’s time to “de- develop” rich countries
By Jason Hickel
This week, heads of states 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
Page | 3 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
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.
Sa bandang ito, sinasabi ng author na magmula pa noon unang panahon ang sinsabi ng ating
mga lider na lunas upang mawala ang problema ng kahirapan sa mundo ay “GROWTH” o
pagiging progresibo.
Subalit ayun sa kanya, hindi na mabisang paraan ang “growth” upang malunasan ang
kahirapan. Ipinakita sa article na magmula noong 1980, ang ekonomiya ng mundo ay lumago
na ng 380% subalit ang kahirapan ay lumago din ng 17 beses. Ibig sabihin, hindi susi ang
paglago ng ekonomiya sa upang malunasan ang talamak na kahirapan.
Ayun sa mga orthodox economists kailangan pa siguro natin ng ng mas madami pang paglago
sa ekonomiya upang masolusyunan ang kahirapan pero ayun sa mga progressivists economists,
kailangang mabahagian ng mga mayayamang bansa ang mga mahihirap na bansa upang lahat
tayo ay umunlad ang estado ng pamumuhay. Ngunit ayon sa author, ang dalawang pananaw na
ito ay hindi sapait sapagkat ano man sa dalawang ito ay hindi kinokonsidera ang kapasidad ng
mundo para suportahan ang buhay. Dahil dito, ipinapahayag ng author ng article na ito na
hindi na solusyon ang “growth” para tayo ay mabuhay ng matiwasay sapagkat labis na
“growth” na ang meron tayo sa puntong hindi na kinakaya ng mundo ang“growth” na
ginagawa natin. Idinagdag pa nya na ang problema at krisis na kinakaharap ng mundo
ngayon ay dahil sa “overconsumption” ng mga mayayamang bansa.
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
Page | 4 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
look at societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and
consumption not as basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as
exemplars of efficient living. How much do we really need to live long and happy lives?
In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have
achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life
expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of
only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological
sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields
improvements in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates.
But even if we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life
expectancy, a number of low- and middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to
sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per
capita income one-fourth that of the US. In light of this, perhaps we should regard such
countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we need to
start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.
Sa ngayon, base sa kapasidad ng planeta natin para suporta ang buhay ng tao, kada isang tao
ay dapat meron lamang 1.8 global hectares ng resources na gagamitin kasama ang waste
materials na dapat ma- produced. Sa mga tinaguriang “underdeveloped” countries o mahihirap
na bansa, wala pang 1.8 global hectares ang nagagamit ng bawat mamamayan upang sila ay
mabuhay samantalang ang mga “developed” countries tulad ng US at Canada at kumukunsumo
ng 8 hectares kada tao. Ang mga nasa Europe naman ay kumukonsumo ng 4.7 hectares kada
tao. Kung hindi ito pag mamalabis ay ano ang tawag natin dito?
Ayon sa economist na si Peter Edward, kaysa pilitin natin ang mga “mahihirap” na bansa
na humabol sa “pag- angat” o development, mas mainam na paraan na ang mga
“mayayaman” na bansa ay mag “catch-down” o maghinayhinay muna sa pag develop.
Kailangan nating tignan ang mga “mahihirap” na bansa hindi bilang mga lugar na kailangan
pang i-develop bagkos bilang isang model o example ng “efficient living” sapagkat ang mga
mamamayan ng mga “mahihirap” na bansang ito ay masasaya at nabubuhay ng matagal sa
kabila ng mabababang level ng consumption o development.
Isa sa mag batayan ng development ay ang antas ng kasiyahan at haba ng buhay ng
mga mamamayan. Sa US, 79 and average life span ng tao at 53,000 dollars and average per
capita income na kailagan ng isang tao upang mabuhay at maging masaya. Parehas lamang ng
sa Cuba pagdating sa average life span at happiness index ang US ngunit 1,600 dollars per
capita income lamang ang kinakailang ng mga tao dito upang maabot ang lebel na ito.
Kaparehas ito ng mga bansang Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua at Tunisia. Totoo naman
daw na may mga extra “perks” o advantage ang ang mga mayayamang bansa ngunit ito ay
hindi direktang nakakaapekto sa life expectancy rate at happiness level ng mga mamamayan
nito. Dahil dito nararapat lamang nating tawagang “appropriately developed” ang mga
Page | 5 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
“mahihirap” o “underdeveloped” na bansa samantalang ang mga “mayayamang” bansa ay
kailangan na sigurong sitahin o ipaliwanag ang kanilang sobrang sobrang “development”.
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. 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.
Page | 6 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
Ang idea ng “de-development” ay isa sa mga nakikitang paraang ng author ng article na ito
upang masolusyunan ang kahirapan habang kinokonsidera ang happiness scale at kalagayan ng
mundo. Ayon sa kanya, maraming tao na nabibilang sa mga middle at high income na bansa ang
naniniwalang ang overconsumption ng mga tao ang naglalagay sa mundo sa panganib ng global
warming at pagkasira. Madalas kasing ang development ay inuugnay ng mga tao sa pagbili ng
mga bagay at pera, ngunit hindi natin napapansin na ang prinsipyong ito ay may pangit na
epekto sa mundo samantalang ang mga materyal na bagay naman na ating nakukuha ay walang
direktang epekto sa lebel ng kasiyahan natin sa buhay. For example, sa ibang bansa labis labis
sila kung mag-palit ng gadget dahil nga may pera silang pambili. Nagpapalit sila ng cellphone o
gadget kapag may bagong labas na modelo kahit na gumagana pa ang mga dating cell phone
nila. Ano ang nangyayari sa mga gadget na pinapalitan nila? Madalas ito ay tinatapon na
lamang. Sa sobrang dami ng mga gadget, computer at cell phones na tinatapon, ito ay nagigi na
lamang basura. Sa sobrang daming basura, nagiging polluted na ang ating kalupaan. At the end,
tayo pa din ang talo dahil tayo ay nabubuhay sa lupa. Ang pollution sa lupa ay direktang
nakakapekto sa kalusugan natin at sa food supply dahil tayo ay kumukuha ng pagkain mula sa
lupa.
Dahil dito, ayon sa author, kailangan na natin sigurong mag- isip at i- adopt ang konsepto ng de
development sa ating buhay. Sa sa totoo lang naman, simpleng mga bagay at simpleng
pamumuhay lang naman ang kailangan natin para tayo ay mabuhay ng matiwasay at masaya.
Source: Hickel, J. 2015. Forget “developing” poor countries, it’s time to “de- develop”
rich countries. The Guardian International. [Link]
professionals-network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-
sdgs. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
- End -
Page | 7 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
References:
Books and articles:
Casas, J.M.A, P. M. Jusayan, A. V. Menor and S. P. Obanan. 2020. Science, Technology
and Society. C&E Publishing, Inc., 839 EDSA, south Triangle, Quezon City
Quinto, E.J.M. and A. D. Nieva. 2019. Science, Technology and Society: Outcome-
Based Module. C&E Publishing, Inc., 839 EDSA, south Triangle, Quezon City
. Hickel, J. 2015. Forget “developing” poor countries, it’s time to “de- develop”
rich countries. The Guardian International. [Link]
professionals-network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-
sdgs. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
Page | 8 -FKFMORENO-
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
