SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY

Human Flourishing in
Science and
Technology
Written Report

De Jesus, Allysa
Mendoza, Dea
Ortiz, Micole
Pingol, Aira
Velasco, Joana

BSA 1-8
Group 3
 The progress of human civilizations throughout history mirrors the development of
science and technology. The human person, as both the bearer and beneficiary of
science and technology, flourishes and finds meaning in the world that he/she builds. In
the person's pursuit of the good life, he/she may unconsciously acquire, consume, or
destroy what the world has to offer. It is thus necessary to reflect on the things that truly
matter. Science and technology must be taken as part of human life that merits
reflective and-as the German philosopher Martin Heidegger says-meditative thinking.
Science and technology, despite its methodical and technical nature, gives meaning
to the life of a person making his/her way in the world.

To be able to appreciate the fruits of science and technology, they must be

examined not only for their function and instrumentality but also for their greater impact
on humanity as a whole. The various gadgets, machines, appliances and vehicles are
all tools that make human lives easier because they serve as a means to an end. Their
utility lies on providing people with a certain good, convenience, or knowledge.
Meanwhile, medical research employs the best scientific and technological principles
to prevent illnesses to ensure a good quality of life.

TECHNOLOGY AS A MODE OF REVEALING

Martin Heidegger’s The Question of Technology urges us to question technology and to

see beyond people’s common understanding of it.

According to ancient doctrine, the essence of a thing is considered

to be what the thing is. We ask the question concerning technology
when we ask what it is. Everyone knows the two statements that
answer our question. One says: Technology is a means to an end.
The other says: Technology is a human activity. The two definitions
of technology belong together. For to posit ends and procure and
utilize the means to them is a human activity. The manufacture and
utilization of equipment, tools, and machines, the manufactured
and used things themselves, and the needs and ends that they
serve, all belong to what technology is. The whole complex of these
contrivances is technology. Technology itself is a contrivance, or, in
Latin, an instrumentum. The current conception of technology,
according to which it is a means and a human activity, can
therefore be called the instrumental and anthropological definition
of technology.

 Technology is a way of bringing forth, a making something.

 Heidegger also put forward the ancient Creek concepts of aletheia,
poiesis, and techne.
 Aletheia means unhiddenness or disclosure
 Poiesis is defined as bringing forth
 Techne (the root word for technology) means skill, art, or craft. It is a
means of bringing forth something.

Heidegger’s concern with technology is not limited to his writings that are
explicitly dedicated to it, and a full appreciation of his views on technology requires
some understanding of how the problem of technology fits into his broader
philosophical project and phenomenological approach. (Phenomenology, for
Heidegger, is a method that tries to let things show themselves in their own way, and
not see them in advance through a technical or theoretical lens.) The most important
argument in Being and Time that is relevant for Heidegger’s later thinking about
technology is that theoretical activities such as the natural sciences depend on views
of time and space that narrow the understanding implicit in how we deal with the
ordinary world of action and concern. We cannot construct meaningful distance and
direction, or understand the opportunities for action, from science’s neutral,
mathematical understanding of space and time. Indeed, this detached and
“objective” scientific view of the world restricts our everyday understanding. Our
ordinary use of things and our “concernful dealings” within the world are pathways to a
more fundamental and more truthful understanding of man and being than the
sciences provide; science flattens the richness of ordinary concern. By placing science
back within the realm of experience from which it originates, and by examining the
way our scientific understanding of time, space, and nature derives from our more
fundamental experience of the world, Heidegger, together with his teacher Husserl and
some of his students such as Jacob Klein and Alexandre Koyré, helped to establish new
ways of thinking about the history and philosophy of science.

TECHNOLOGY AS POIESIS: APPLICABLE TO MODERN TECHNOLOGY

Does the idea that technology is poiesis apply to modern technology?

Definition of Technology in accordance to Heidegger’s concept

 Technology is merely a tool through which an attitude can be pursued.

What is Attitude?

 The way how technology is viewed or used.

 There are 2 kinds: right attitude and wrong attitude
Bringing forth (right attitude)

 An object or a thing which has a stand-alone essence, and technology is used

to reveal that essence in respect to its nature.

Challenging forth (wrong attitude)

 Subjects do not have essence they are merely viewed as material.

Modern technology

 Heidegger described modern technology as the age of switches,

standing reserve, and stockpiling for its own sake.
 Characterized by Heidegger as a challenging forth since it is very aggressive in its
activity
 It may also be a mode of revealing but not as harmonious as bringing forth.
 Revealing is never ending because it will always happen on our own terms.

“We call it the standing-reserve”

 Standing-reserve = Instrumentality
 Instrumentality – the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension
of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking
life.

Technology transforms humanity itself into standing-reserve.

QUESTIONING AS THE PIETY OF THOUGHT

“Questioning is the piety of thought." –Heidegger

 Piety means obedience and submission.

In this stepping back and taking stock of things, we begin to wonder and question. One
may admire the intricacy of mechanisms and the sophistication of mobile applications.
Another may marvel at the people and circumstances that allowed for such
technology. There is so much wealth of insights that can be gathered when people
stop, think, and question. “Questioning is the piety of thought," stated Heidegger in The
Question Concerning Technology.
Normally, piety is associated with being religious. For Heidegger, however, piety means
obedience and submission. In addressing what technology has brought forth, one
cannot help but be submissive to what his/her thoughts and reflections elicit.
Sometimes, thinking brings forth insights that the mind has not yet fully understood or
developed. There are times when one's thinking brings forth eureka moments. Whatever
understanding is found becomes significant because it is evoked by questioning who or
what we essentially are in the world. For example, it is a known truth that we, human
beings and everything around us, arc made of the same substances that constitute the
stars. Therefore, we actually are stardust. Do we just take this matter-of-factly or do we
wonder at its significance? It is when we start questioning that we submit ourselves to
our thoughts. This kind of questioning leads one to search for his/her place in the
universe and in the grand scale of things. It is through this process that one builds a way
towards knowing the truth of who he/she is as a being in this world.

ENFRAMING: WAY OF REVEALING IN MODERN TECHNOLOGY

Gestell is a German word used by twentieth-century German philosopher Martin

Heidegger to describe what lies behind or beneath modern technology. It was derived
from the root word stellen, which means "to put" or "to place" and combined with the
German prefix Ge-, which denotes a form of "gathering" or "collection".

Heidegger applied the concept of Gestell to his exposition of the essence of

technology. He concluded that technology is fundamentally Enframing (Gestell). As
such, the essence of technology is Gestell. Indeed, "Gestell, literally 'framing', is an all-
encompassing view of technology, not as a means to an end, but rather a mode of
human existence"

Concerning the essence of technology and how we see things in our technological
age, the world has been framed as the "standing-reserve.

The German word Gestell has a number of meanings, some of which Heidegger
mentions: rack, skeleton--the basic sense is of an armature or framework. Heidegger
develops a new application of this term to describe how human beings have come to
relate to the natural world.

He returns to the Greek word eidos, familiar to us from the example of the chalice, and
explains how Plato redefined this word. Eidos originally designated the outward, visible
appearance of an object; Plato, however, uses the word to mean the abstract,
universal essence of that object: the "chaliceness" of the chalice is the eidos. From
Plato's redefinition comes our word "idea."

We often hear people criticized for wanting to "put everything into boxes." This
expression usually means that a person thinks uncreatively, narrowly, with too high a
regard for established categories. The "frame" metaphor in Heidegger's concept of
"enframing" corresponds to these "boxes," but for Heidegger, all of us have a tendency
to think in this way.

We noted before that nature reveals itself to us in its own terms, and all that humanity
can directly control is its orientation to the natural world.

When Heidegger states that "the essence of technology is by no means anything

technological," he means that technology's driving force is not located in machines
themselves, nor even in the various human activities that are associated with modern
modes of production

Heidegger now sets out to place technology within the history of the modern sciences.
He makes the remarkable suggestion that in at least one sense modern technology
comes before the development of modern physics and actually shapes that
development.

Where does this enframing tendency of human thought begin?

For Heidegger, philosophy is "the painstaking effort to think through still more primally
what was primally thought" Heidegger concludes this section by reminding us that the
essence of technology precedes the historical emergence of both modern science
and modern machine production. In that sense, we might view modern science as the
"application" of enframing.

HUMAN PERSON SWALLOWED BY TECHNOLOGY

▪ There’s not a single aspect of the human experience that hasn’t been touched by
technology. Everything from industry, to medicine, to how we work has been
fundamentally reshaped by the technologies which emerged in the second half of
the 20th century.
▪ Essence is the way in which things are, as that which endures.
▪ The effects of technological advancement are both positive and negative.
▪ Positively, technology advancement has simplified the way we do things, it saves
time, it increases on production, it simplifies communication, it has improved health
care and it has also improved our educational environment.
▪ Negatively , technology advancement has made humans so lazy , technology users
are so dependent on new advance tech tools , this laziness has resulted into less
innovation , it has increased on health risks because technology users exercise less ,
it has affected the environment because of the increase pollution which has
affected the Ozone layers which has resulted into global warming. When it comes to
education, students are more dependent on Calculators and computers to solve
simple equations; in this case they cannot train their brains to solve a simple task
which makes them lame in class.
▪ Heidegger further asserted that the “essence of technology is nothing
technological” (1977). The essence of technology is not found in the instrumentality
and function of machines constructed, but in the significance such technology
unfolds.
▪ Even though technology involves human activity, it can never be conceived as the
mere effect of such activity. Technology is not solely instrumental either, for it is not
possible to speak of a means and end relationship when the end of technology
remains unknown. Heidegger perceives the essence of technology as revealing,
that is, as “bringing forth” what is present into “presencing.”
▪ Technology is a way of understanding the world.
▪ He stated: “Thus we shall never experience our relationship to the essence so long as
we merely represent and pursue the technological, put up with it, or evade it.
Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately
affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we
regard it as something neutral for this conception of it, to which today we
particularly like to pay homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of
technology” (1977, p. 1)

ART AS A WAY OUT OF ENFRAMING

Enframing, as the mode of revealing in modern technology, tends to block poiesis.

In modern technology, the way of revealing is no longer poetic; it is challenging.

Heidegger proposes art as a way out of this enframing. Through meditative thinking, we
will recognize that nature is art par excellence. Hence, nature is the most poetic.

There was a time when it was not technology alone that bore the
name techne. Once that revealing that brings forth truth into the
splendor of radiant appearing also was called techne.
Once there was a time when the bringing-forth of the true into the
beautiful was called techne. And the poiesis of the fine arts also was
called techne.
In Greece, at the outset of the destining of the West, the arts soared to
the supreme height of the revealing granted them. They brought the
presence, [Gegenwart] of the gods, brought the dialogue of divine and
human destinings, to radiance. And art was simply called techne. It was
a single, manifold revealing. It was pious, promos, i.e., yielding to the
holding-sway and the safekeeping of truth.
The arts were not derived from the artistic. Art works were not enjoyed
aesthetically. Art was not a sector of cultural activity.
 What, then, was art – perhaps only for that brief but magnificent time?
Why did art bear the modest name techne? Because it was a revealing
that brought forth and made present, and therefore belonged within
poiesis. It was finally that revealing which holds complete sway in all the
fine arts, in poetry, and in everything poetical that obtained poiesis as its
proper name.(Heidegger, 1977, p.13)

Technology is normally thought of as that which solves problems, but

Heidegger asserted that it is something that must be questioned.

The calculative thinking in which we perceive nature in a technical and scientific

manner is becoming more important in the modern world. On the other hand, it is
meditative thinking that provides a way for us to remain rooted in the essence of who
we are.

Aristotle’s conception of the four causes was mechanical. As explained by

Heidegger:
For centuries philosophy has taught that there are four causes: (1) the
causa materialis, the material, the matter out of which, for example, a
silver chalice is made; (2) the causa formalis, the form, the shape into
which the material enters; (3) the causa finalis, the end, for example,
the sacrificial rite in relation to which the chalice required is determined
as to its form and matter; (4) the causa efficiens, which brings about the
effect that is the finished, actual chalice, in this instance, the silversmith.
What technology is, when represented as a means, discloses itself when
we trace instrumentality back to fourfold causality.(1997, p. 2)

Though enframing happens, it cannot completely snuff out the poetic character_of
technology. We ponder technology and question it. In so doing, we also become
aware of the crisis we have plunged the Earth into. The danger is made present and
more palpable through our art and poetry. Amid this realization, we remain hopeful
because, as the poet Holderlin put it, “... poetically man dwells upon this Earth"
(Heidegger, 1917, p.13).

HUMAN FLOURISHING AS REFLECTED IN PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT

How do we know that we are progressing? What are the indicators of development?
More often than not, development is equated with growth and greater consumption.

Jason Hickel
  an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, challenges us to rethink
and reflect on a different paradigm of “de-development.”
 Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop rich countries

Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries

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, its 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.

Instead of pushing poor countries to 'catch up' with rich ones, we should be getting rich
countries to 'catch down'

Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global
hectares” annually – a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This
figure is roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By
contrast, people in the US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while
Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their fair share.

What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues
that instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be
thinking of ways to get rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of
development. We should look at societies where people live long and happy lives at
relatively low levels of income and consumption not as basket cases that need to be
developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living.

'Those sitting on wealth and power aren't going to stand aside and do the right thing'

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 well-being in
addition to life expectancy, a number of low- and middle-income countries rank highly.
Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life
expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US.

In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but
rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich
countries to justify their excesses.

70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is

putting our planet and society at risk

The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the
global south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible.
According to recent consumer research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income
countries believe overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar
majority also believe we should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not
compromise our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with the dominant
model of economic progress and they are hungry for an alternative narrative.

The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong
language. They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-
development, which are technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not
already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run against the deepest
frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s
like asking people to stop moving positively thorough life, to stop learning, improving,
growing.

Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is

a step in the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the
framing right. We need to reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of
progress. One that is geared toward quality instead of quantity. One that is more
sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing amounts of stuff, which doesn’t
make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not going to
get us there and we need to get rid of it.

Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organising alternative
visions around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own
tradition of reflection on the good life and it’s time we 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.
The Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint to achieve a better and
more sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges we face,
including those related to poverty, inequality, climate, environmental
degradation, prosperity, and peace and justice. The Goals interconnect and in
order to leave no one behind, it ís important that we achieve each Goal and
target by 2030.

SDG 1- NO POVERTY:
End poverty in all its forms everywhere

SDG 2 - ZERO HUNGER:

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable
agriculture

SDG 3 - GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING:

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

SDG 4 – QUALITY EDUCATION:

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning

SDG 5 – GENDER EQUALITY

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
SDG 6 – CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION
Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

SDG 7 – AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

SDG 8 – DECENT WORK AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive

SDG 9 – INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization

SDG 10 – REDUCED INEQUALITIES

Reduce inequality within and among countries

SDG 11 – SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

SDG 12 – RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

SDG 13 – CLIMATE ACTION

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

SDG 14 – LIFE BELOW WATER

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable
development

SDG 15 – LIFE ON LAND

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably
manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and
halt biodiversity loss

SDG 16 – PEACE, JUSTICE AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access
to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

SDG 17 – PARTNERSHIP FOR THE GOALS

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for
sustainable development
Sources:

Ramey, K. (2012, November 12). Retrieved from:

https://www.useoftechnology.com/technological-advancements-effects-
humanity/

Serin, M. (2012, May 19) Retrieved from:

https://tristeshamshiny.blogspot.com/2012/05/httpwww_19.html?_escaped_fragme
nt_&m=1

Hickel, J. (2015, September 23). Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-
develop' rich countries. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-
sdgs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

(n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from

https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-
goals.html

(n.d.). Goal 17 .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Retrieved from

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17