Module 3 Martin Heidegger 1. He was a German philosopher who is fun of thinking about 'being', technology and etc. 2. He rejected the idea of positivist thinkers and critical to technological domination in the modern world. 3. Heidegger was critical to the essence and modern technology and 4. He reconstructed the meaning of technology that reflected in his essay entitled " The Question Concerning Technology". The meaning of technology for the Greeks was assumed to be part of our everyday life. To clarify further, the term technology was defined into two categories. 1. Technology is a means to an end. 2. Technology is a human activity. The Greek definition of technology as a human activity designed for a specific purpose was restructured in modern times. Technology in the modern era was reduced to calculative thinking that controls nature. Modern Technology as Challenging Forth Heidegger claimed that ancient and modern technology are revealing. However, modern technology is revealing not in the sense of bringing forth but rather challenging nature. Modern technology challenges nature through extracting, transforming, storing, and distributing it. Challenging forth reduced nature as standing 'reserve' or something to be disposed of by the people. For example, people exploited the natural resources without minding the negative effects on the ecology, the modernization of extracting gold, coal, and petroleum from the ground compromised the bodies of water, using of synthetic dyes and artificial flavoring jeopardize human health, and the use of chemicals in the agriculture poses threat to food safety and health security. Modern Technology as Enframing According to Martin Heidegger, modern technology is enframing. The term 'enframing' derives from the word 'frame' which means putting something into a box. A brief overview of Aristotle's Life Aristotle, who lived from 384 - 322 BC, is probably the most important ancient Greek philosopher and scientist. He was a student of Plato and founded a school named Lyceum. In his own school, Aristotle's students compiled their lecture notes and came up with a book entitled Nichomachean Ethics. This Nichomachean Ethics, dedicated to his son Nichomachus, became a foundation of Aristotle's ethics composed of ten books. What is a good life? In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that every action aims at some good. The instrumental good is a means to achieve something else while intrinsic good is good in itself or ultimate good (Eudaimonia or human flourishing/happiness). Eudaimonia Eudaimonia is a Greek word that means human flourishing or happiness. Eudaimonia as ultimate good is the final end of our action Instrumental good aims at something else while intrinsic good is the final end or good in itself. Intrinsic good if you are happy with what you are doing right now. The soul was divided into three; rational, sensitive, and nutritive. The rational part of the soul is the ability of a human person to think either based on theoretical or practical knowledge. Arete is one of the significant concepts of Aristotle in achieving a good life/Eudaimonia or happiness. Arete is a Greek term that means 'excellence of any kind in terms of intellectual and moral virtues. Intellectual virtue is achieved through education and experience. On the other hand, moral virtue is developed through the constant practice of an action that promotes good life. Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, criticized the failure of the growth and development efforts of the UN to eradicate poverty several decades ago. He conceptualized a nonconformist perspective toward growth and development. Assumptions: 1. UN's new sustainable development goals (SDGs) assumed that growth based on the traditional economic model is an effective strategy to eradicate poverty. 2. Gross Domestic Products (GDP) is a measure of human development. 3. Questions; 1. How much do we really need to live long and enjoy a happy life? - According to Peter Edward, instead of pushing poor 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. - Genuine Progress is anchored on quality instead of quantity 2. What is a good life or good living? - Latin Americans organized themselves and envision the indigenous concept of Buen Vivir, or good living. - Robert and Edward Skidelsky conceptualized the good life through the possibility of interventions like banning advertising that promotes consumerism and shortens the working hour, and basic income. Module 4 H - human beings' U - unequivocal M - means A - and privilege that N - need to be R- respected I - in order to G - gain success for humanity T - today and tomorrow in relation to S- Science and Technology Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, and the like. Human rights in the face of technological and scientific advancement are critical factors in one's journey toward a good life. Protecting the well-being and protecting the dignity of the human person must be at the core of continued scientific and technological progress and development. Such is the focus of the human rights-based approach to science, technology, and society by S. Romi Mukherjee. 3 important documents 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - This document affirms everyone's right to participate in and benefit from scientific advances, and be protected from scientific misuse. 2. UNESCO Recommendation of the Status of Scientific Researchers- This document that all advances in scientific and technological knowledge should solely be geared toward the welfare of the global citizens, and calls upon member states to develop necessary protocol policies to monitor and secure this objective. 3. UNESCO Declaration on the Use of Scientific Knowledge This document states, "Today, more than ever, science and its applications are indispensable for development. All levels of government and the private sector should provide enhanced support for building up adequate and evenly distributed scientific and technological capacity through appropriate education and research programs as an indispensable foundation for economic, social, cultural, and environmentally sound development. He explained that 21st-century technologies are becoming very powerful that they can potentially bring about 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. In the article, he cautioned humans against over-dependence on machines. Human rights are rights to sustainability, as Mukherjee put it. They may function as the "golden mean," particularly by protecting the weak, poor, and vulnerable from deficiencies and excesses of science and technology. Joy also voiced his apprehension about the rapid increase in computer power. He was concerned that computers will eventually become more intelligent than humans, thus ushering societies into dystopian visions, such as robot rebellions. To illuminate his concern, Joy drew 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 over-reliance on antibiotics led to the great paradox of emerging antibiotic-resistant strains of dangerous bacteria. The article, "Why the Future Does Not Need Us?" was written by William Nelson Joy, an American computer scientist of Sun Microsystems. Criticisms of Joy’s article, For one, John Seely and Paul Duguid (2001), in their article, A Response to Bill Joy and doom-and-gloom Technofuturists, A human rights - approach to science, technology, and development sets the parameters for the appraisal of how science, technology, and development promote human well-being. criticize 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. The article tackles uncomfortable and unpleasant 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 the future that will no longer need the human race. 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.
