UNIT 3: Science, Technology, Society, and the Human Condition Lesson 2 (PDF)

UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human Condition Lesson 2. Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress and Development (Week 10) Introduction: If we are fortunate enough to have children, then our desire for the...

UNIT 3. Science, Technology, Society, and the Human Condition Lesson 2. Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress and Development (Week 10) Introduction: If we are fortunate enough to have children, then our desire for them will probably be that they live happy lives. Happiness is one way of expressing what the good life means. But happiness on its own does not really express the complexities of human existence and its fulfilment. In a global context we might choose, instead, to use the term human wellbeing; that is commonly measured in terms of statistical approaches to life expectancy, income and access to goods. This gives some clues as to what might lead to human fulfilment, and disparities between different peoples, but it is not really enough. Factual accounts fail to probe the complexity of human relationships in different societal contexts and why these situations of gross inequality arise. A rather better term is therefore human flourishing, as this implies a richer, relational understanding of the human condition. But the possibilities for human flourishing in our present societies seem dwarfed by difficulties, not only in the developing world, but also in the developed world. This alternative voice is one that takes the religious aspect of human experience seriously, and argues for the incorporation of these values into a concept of human flourishing. Such an alternative does not simply replace what has gone before, but seeks to transform it through opening up the underlying assumptions that have hitherto been accepted. Even those scholars who are not religious are beginning to recognize that there are philosophical reasons for religions having a public role in influencing wider society, as long as such religions refrain from fundamentalism. In the latter case religions need to be held to account for their negative, rather than positive influence. But the influence of religion can be channelled so that it is positive, rather than negative. Firstly, religious traditions can help society discover deformities in its societal relationships. Secondly, religions also have what might be called a latent positive potential – that they may be able to inspire not just their own communities, but wider society as a whole. Learning Outcomes: At the end of lesson the students must have 1. Critiqued human flourishing vis-à-vis the progress of science and technology 2. Explained Hickel’s paradigm of “development” 3. Differentiated the paradigm from the traditional notions of growth and consumption 26 Physicsal Science Department  Activate your Prior Knowledge This time relate your prior knowledge to the lesson. Dr. Jason Hickel, economist and specialist on inequalities, published in 2017 The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. He examines solutions to reverse the development dynamics and eradicate poverty on a global scale. {Copyright ID4D, https://ideas4development.org/en/end-poverty-changing-rules-economy/} What is your opinion in this tag line: 27 Physicsal Science Department  “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. The hard truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to over- consumption in rich countries. Rich countries must “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development.” --Jason Hickel-- Dr. Jason Hickel is an economic anthropologist, author, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He is a Senior Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London. He serves on the Statistical Advisory Panel for the UN Human Development Report 2020, the advisory board of the Green New Deal for Europe, and on the Harvard-Lancet Commission on Reparations and Redistributive Justice. What are the Sustainable Development Goals? The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. The 17 SDGs are integrated—that is, they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability. 28 Physicsal Science Department  Through the pledge to Leave No One Behind, countries have committed to fast- track progress for those furthest behind first. That is why the SDGs are designed to bring the world to several life-changing ‘zeros’, including zero poverty, hunger, AIDS and discrimination against women and girls. Everyone is needed to reach these ambitious targets. The creativity, knowhow, technology and financial resources from all of society is necessary to achieve the SDGs in every context. What is UNDP's role? As the lead UN development agency, UNDP is well-placed to help implement the Goals through our work in some 170 countries and territories. We support countries in achieving the SDGs through integrated solutions. Today’s complex challenges—from stemming the spread of disease to preventing conflict—cannot be tackled neatly in isolation. For UNDP, this means focusing on systems, root causes and connections between challenges—not just thematic sectors—to build solutions that respond to people’s daily realities. Our track record working across the Goals provides us with a valuable experience and proven policy expertise to ensure we all reach the targets set out in the SDGs by 2030. But we cannot do this alone.Achieving the SDGs requires the partnership of governments, private sector, civil society and citizens alike to make sure we leave a better planet for future generations. 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, 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. 29 Physicsal Science Department  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 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. 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. 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. 30 Physicsal Science Department  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. 31 Physicsal Science Department