GE 12 - Module 2
GE 12 - Module 2
MODULE 2:
1. Discuss how the ideas postulated by Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud contributed to the spark of
scientific revolution
2. Discuss the role of science and technology in Philippine nation-building
3. Identify science schools established to promote science education in the Philippines
4. Critic human flourishing vis-à-vis progress of science and technology to be able to define for
themselves the meaning of a good life.
5. Identify the change that happened in human condition after science and technology
6. Recognize possibilities available to human being to attain the good life.
7. Create a diagram that would show the relatedness of species in forming up a diverse and healthy
society without compromising one another
8. Identify the causes of climate change
9. Illustrate how the community helps in mitigating the hazards caused by climate change
10. Understand the effects of climate change on the society
Eudaimonia, literally "good spirited", is a term coined by renowned Greek Philosopher Aristotle
(385 – 323 BC) to describe the pinnacle of happiness that is attainable by humans. This has been translated
into "human flourishing" in literature, arguably likening humans to flowers achieving their full bloom. As
discussed in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's human flourishing arises as a result of different
components such as phronesis, friendship, wealth, and power. In the Ancient Greek society, they believe
that acquiring these qualities will surely bring the seekers happiness, which in effect allows them to partake
in the greater notion of what we call the Good.
In the beginning, early people relied on simple machines to make hunting and gathering easier. This
development allowed them to make grander and more sophisticated machines to aid them in their endeavors
that eventually led to space explorations, medicine innovations, and ventures of life after death. Our concept
of human flourishing today proves to be different from what Aristotle originally perceived then – humans of
today are expected to become a "man of the world". He is supposed to situate himself in a global
neighborhood, working side by side among institutions and the government to be able to reach a common
goal. Competition as a means of survival has become passé; coordination is the new trend.
Interestingly, there exists a discrepancy between eastern and western conception regarding society
and human flourishing. It has been observed that western civilization tends to be more focused on the
individual, while those from the east are more community-centric. Human flourishing as an end then is
primarily more of a concern for western civilizations over eastern ones. This is not to discredit our kinsfolk
from the east; perhaps in their view, community takes the highest regard that the individual should sacrifice
himself for the sake of the society. This is apparent in the Chinese Confucian system or the Japanese
Bushido, both of which view the whole as greater than their components. The Chinese and the Japanese
encourage studies of literature, sciences, and art, not entirely for oneself but in service of a greater cause.
The Greek Aristotelian view, on the other hand, aims for eudaimonia as the ultimate good; there is no
indication whatsoever that Aristotle entailed it instrumental to achieve some other goals.
In school, the scientific method is introduced in the earlier part of discussions. Even though the
number of steps varies, it presents a general idea of how to do science:
Verification Theory
The earliest criterion that distinguishes philosophy and science is verification theory. The idea
proposes that a discipline is science if it can be confirmed or interpreted in the event of an alternative
hypothesis being accepted. In that regard, said theory gives premium to empiricism and only takes into
account those results which are measurable and experiments which are repeatable. This was espoused by a
movement in the early twentieth century called the Vienna Circle, a group of scholars who believed that
only those which cannot be directly accessed as meaningless. Initially, this proved to be attractive due to
general consensus from people, which happened to see for themselves how the experiment occurred,
solidifying its validity and garnering supporters from esteemed figures.
This theory completely fails to weed out bogus arguments that explain things coincidentally. A
classic example is astrology, whose followers are able to employ the verification method in ascertaining its
reliability. The idea is that since one already has some sort of expectations on what to find, they will
interpret events in line with said expectations. American philosopher Thomas Kuhn warned us against
bridging the gap between evidence and theory by attempting to interpret the former according to our own
biases, that is, whether or not we subscribe to the theory. Below is a short story illustrating this point:
Suppose, for instance, this girl, Lea has a (not-so-scientific) theory that her classmate Ian
likes her. Good, she thought, I like him too. But how do I know he like me?
She began by observing him and his interactions with her. Several gestures she noted include
his always exchanging pleasantries with her whenever they bump into each other, his big smile when
he sees her, and him going out of his way to greet her even when riding a jeepney. Through these
observations, she was then able to conclude that Ian does like her because, she thought, why would
anyone do something like that for a person he does not like?
As it turns out, however, Ian is just generally happy to meet people he knew. He had known
Lea since they were in first year and regards her as a generally okay person. It is no surprise then
that upon learning that Ian basically does his to everyone, Lea was crushed. She vowed to herself
that she would never assume again.
Based from the above story, is it justified for Lea to think that Ian does not like her? not quite. The
next criterion also warns us about the danger of this view.
Falsification Theory
Falsification theory asserts that as long as an ideology is not proven to be false and can best explain
a phenomenon over alternative theories, we should accept the said ideology. Due to its hospitable character,
the shift to this theory allowed emergence of theories otherwise rejected by verification theory. It does not
promote ultimate adoption of one theory but instead encourages research in order to determine which among
the theories can stand the test of falsification. The strongest one is that which is able to remain upheld amidst
various tests, while being able to make particularly risky predictions about the world. Karl Popper is known
proponent of this view. He was notorious for stating that up-and-coming theories of the time, such as Marx's
Thoery of Social History and Sigmund Freud's Psychoanalysis, are not testable and thus not falsifiable,
and subsequently questioning their status as scientific. Albeit majority of scientists nowadays are more
inclined to be Popperian in their beliefs, this theory, similar to the theory above, presents certain dangers by
interpreting an otherwise independent evidence in light of their pet theory.
Ian is generally everybody's friend. He likes to be around people and generally aspires to
become everybody's friend. However, there is this one girl, Lea, who seemed to not like him when he
is around. Every time he waves at her, she turns away, and when they are in the same room, she
avoids his glances. Through this, he concluded that Lea does not like him and does his best to show
her that he is not a threat. He began greeting her whenever they pass by each other at the corridor,
even going so far as calling her attention when he was in the jeepney and saw her walking past.
When they are able to talk to each other, he found out that Lea is just really shy and is not
accustomed to people greeting her. he then was able to conclude that his initial impression of her not
liking him (as a person) is wrong and thus said proposition is rejected.
Although there is no happy ending yet for Lea and Ian, we can thus see how in this case, falsification
method is prone to the same generalizations committed by the verification method. There is no known rule
as to the number of instance that a theory is rejected or falsified in order for it to be set aside. Similarly,
there is no assurance that observable event or "evidences" are indeed manifestations of a certain concept or
"theories". Thus, even though, theoretically, falsification method is more accepted, scientists are still not
convinced that it should be regarded as what makes a discipline scientific.
Due to inconclusiveness of the methodologies previously cited, a new school of thought on the
proper demarcation criterion of science emerged. Several philosophers such as Paul Thagard, Imre Lakatos.
Helen Longino, David Bloor, and Richard Rorty, among others, presented an alternative demarcation that
explores the social dimension of science and effectively, technology. science cease to belong solely to
gown-wearing, bespectacled scientists at laboratories. The new view perpetuates a dimension which
generally benefits the society. For instance, far-off places in South America where many of the tribe remain
uncontacted, do not regard western science as their science. Whatever their science is, it can be ascertained
that it is in no way inferior to that of globalized peoples' science. Thus, it presents an alternative notion that
goes beyond the boundaries of cold, hard facts of science and instead projects it in a different light, such as
manifestation of shared experience forging solidarity over communities.
For the most part, people who do not understand science are won over when the discipline is able to
produce results. Similar to when Jesus performed miracles and garnered followers, people are sold over the
capacity of science to do stuff they cannot fully comprehend. In this particular argument, however, science
is not the only discipline which is able to produce results – religion, luck, and human randomness are some
of its contemporaries in the field. For some communities without access to science, they can turn to
divination and superstition and still get the same results. Science is not entirely foolproof, such that it is
correct 100% of the time. Weather reports, for one, illustrate fallibility and limitations of their scope, as well
as their inability to predict disasters. The best that can be done during an upcoming disaster is to reinforce
materials to be more calamity proof and restore the area upon impact. It can be then concluded that science
does not monopolized the claim for definite results.
Science as Education
Aforementioned discussion notes that there is no such thing as a singular scientific method, offering
instead a variety of procedures that scientists can experiment with to get results and call them science.
Discoveries in physics, specifically in quantum mechanics, appeared to have debunked the idea of
objectivity in reality, subscribing instead to alternative idea called intersubjectivity. With objectivity gone,
it has lost its number one credence. Nevertheless, there still exists a repressing concept that comes about as a
result of unjustified irreverence of science-our preference of science-inclined students over those which are
less adept. In the Philippines, a large distribution of science high schools can be found all over the country,
forging competition for aspiring students to secure a slot and undergo rigorous science and mathematics
training based on specialized curricula. Although arguable as these schools also take great consideration in
providing holistic education by assuring that other non-science courses are covered, adeptness in science and
mathematics are the primary condition to be admitted. This preference is also reflected on the amount of
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) – offering schools accommodating Grades 11 and
12. Among all the clusters being offered, STEM trumps the remaining clusters I terms of popularity and
distribution, with Accounting and Business coming in as a close second. One might infer that there are more
demand in this field as students are preconditioned that the field would latter land them high-paying jobs and
a lucrative career after graduation.
If one is really in pursuit of human flourishing, it would make sense for them to pursue it holistically.
Simply mastering science and technology would be inadequate if we are to say, socialize with people or
ruminate on our inner self. Aristotle's eudaimonic person is required to be knowledgeable about science,
among other things of equal importance. They are supposed to possess intellectual virtues that will enable
them to determine truth from falsehood or good reasoning from poor reasoning. A true eudaimon recognizes
that flourishing requires one to excel in various dimensions, such as linguistic, kinetic, artistic, and socio-
civic. Thus, he understands that he should not focus on one aspect alone.
In 2000, world leaders signed the Millenium Development Goals (MDG) that targets eight concerns,
one which states that they should be able to forge a global partnership for development. Inasmuch as the
institutes imposing them do in good faith, the primary goal to achieve growth for all might prove to be fatal
in the long run.
Economists believe that growth is the primary indicator of development, as both go hand, and has put
forth their resources in trying to achieve such. Technology has been a primary instrument in enabling them
to pursue said goal, utilizing resources, machineries, and labor. What is missing in this equation is that
growth presents an illusory notion of sustainability – the world's resources can only provide so much, it
cannot be expected to stretch out for everybody's consumption over a long period of time. Moreover, growth
is not infinite – there is no preordained ceiling once the ball starts rolling. If the MDG convention's intent
was to get everyone in the growth ship, that ship will surely sink before leaving the port. The same analogy
applies to the capacity of nature to accommodate us, which Joseph Hickel contemplated on, suggesting that
development countries should not push forth more growth but instead adopt "de – development" policies or
else, everybody loses. The rapid pace of technological growth allows no room for nature to recuperate,
resulting in exploitation and irreversible damages to nature.
Comparing the lives of the people before and now will make anyone realize the changes that
happened in society not just in terms of culture, language, or rights but more importantly, changes in
people's way of life due to the existence of science and technology.
The term "generation gap" is attributed mainly to the changes brought about by technology.
Although the original idea is for technology to help everyone, it cannot be denied that until today, not
everyone is comfortable in using the different kinds of technologies are too complicated to operate. They
have been used to the simple living in the past and these available technological devices, though very
appealing, are a difficult puzzle to them.
However, this gap is not something to be worried about. This does not in any way make technology a
villain. Instead, it is a challenge for people in the field of science and technology to make these
technological advancements more accessible and less confusing for people who are not as young anymore.
This is also a challenge for the younger generation to take the older generation to an exciting journey in
science and technology. In this way, everyone can experience what it is like to live with ease and comfort
because of the availability of modern technology.
People who lived in the past and people who are living in the present all have different views of what
it means to flourish, primarily due to the kind of environment and the period one is in. people's ways of life
and how the society works also affect how one construes the concept of human flourishing. The
environment needs to be assessed in order to know the possibility of human flourishing and to what extent it
is possible. Since there have been drastic changes in people's way of life, it can be inferred that there have
been drastic changes not only in the conception of human flourishing but to people's actual human condition.
These changes were brought about by the interplay of different factors but essentially, it was brought about
by science and technology.
Our early ancestors' primal need to survive paved way for the invention of several developments.
Gifted with brains more advanced than other creatures, humans are able to utilize abundant materials for
their own ease and comfort. As it is difficult to pinpoint the particular period where technology is said to
have started, one can say that at the very least, the motivation to make things easier has been around since
humans are. Homo erectus have been using fire to cook, through chipping one flint over the other to
produce a spark, all the while without realizing the laws of friction and heat. Tools from stone and flints
marked the era of the Stone Age, during the advent of our very own Homo sapiens, and humans began to
sharpen stones as one would a knife; an example of this is the simple machine called wedge.
This particular period proved to be difficult for our ancestors, but in a remarkably distinct way. There
is little to no written accounts except for several cave drawings and unearthed artifacts from various parts of
the world that narrate how their culture came to be. It then proves that there is little capacity for our
ancestors to contemplate and perceive things outside themselves in a more reflective manner. For instance,
there are several excavations in different parts of Europe of miniature statues prevalent during the
Paleolithic period, the so called "Venus" figure. It depicts a rudimentary carving of a voluptuous woman
out of ivory or stone. The reason behind this is still unknown to archeologists and anthropologists alike; they
can only infer that the humans of yesterday have a certain fixation on the female anatomy.
For a long time, humans were content with their relationship with nature. Earliest case of man-made
extinction occurred over 12, 000 years ago, possibly brought upon by hunting and territorial disputes. The
Holocene extinction, also called the sixth extinction or more aptly Anthropocene extinction, occurred
from as early as between 100, 000 to 200, 000 years up to the present. It pertains to the ongoing extinction of
several species – both flora and fauna – due to human activity. Driven by their primal need to survive and
gaining the upper hand in terms of development and adaptability, humans were quick to find ways to drive
off other megafaunas threatening a prospective hunting spot and eventually, settling grounds. Growing
population also necessitated finding additional resources, leading to overhunting and overfishing common
prey, some of which were endemic to the area. Hunting, coupled with a changing terrain that the humans
began cultivating when agriculture emerged some 9, 000 years ago, caused several species to lose
competition in territory and food resources. Formation of communities caused humans to expand more in
territory and more people to feed; large, separate communities hailing from the same ancestors and residing
in the same large community paved way for civilizations. Even as a community, the people realized that
though they were at most self-sufficient, they were in constant need of resources. Albeit waging wars with
other tribes seemed to be the early solution, they were able to find out some 5, 000 years ago that engaging
in a peaceful negotiation was also a possible and less bloody method. They realized that they could get hold
of things not present in their towns by offering something of the same value present in theirs. It is in this
process that trade emerged, leading to cross-town and eventually cross-cultural interaction as more products
were exchanged and the initial needs extended to wants.
Technology has been instrumental in all of these because in searching for the good life, people were
able to come up with creations that would make life easier, more comfortable, and more enriching. Although
the good life envisioned before might be pale in comparison to the multifariousness of today, it offered us
the initial intricacies of how today came to be.
Position-wise, the humans of today are much better off compared to humans several centuries ago.
Advancements in medicine, technology, health, and education ushered in humanity's best yet, and show no
sign of stopping. Below are some of the notable comparisons then and now:
1. Mortality Rate. Due to technology, lesser women and children die during birth, assuring
robust population and strong workplace. Medical care for premature infants allows them to
survive and develop normally, while proper maternal care ensures that mothers can fully
recover and remain empowered.
2. Average Lifespan. Aside from the reason that people engage less in combat and are less
likely to die in treatable diseases now as opposed to then, science is able to prolong lives by
enhancing living status and discovering different remedies to most diseases. Distribution of
medicines is also made easier and faster.
3. Literacy Rate. Access to education provided to more individuals generally creates a more
informed public that could determine a more just society.
4. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Although not an indicator of an average person's lifestyle
in a certain country, it is often used to determine the value of the country's good and services
produced within the territory given a certain time period. Higher country income is brought
upon by high productivity, often an indicator of presence of technology.
Humanity has indeed come a long way from our primitive ways, as a general rule, it is said that we
are more "developed" than we were before. Modern humans are reliant on technology in their search for the
good life. We see ways and means from nature to utilize and achieve growth – a goal that we believe would
bring forth betterment.
Humans lose track of things that matter, reducing their surroundings to their economic value. As this
presents strong backing by the sciences whose reverence is also brought upon by our deluded enhancement
with technology, it will prove to be a herculean task to distance ourselves from this perspective and consider
alternatives. After all, it was science and technology that gave us explanations, which worked for us and
benefited us. Rejecting a working, tried – and – tested process seems foolish, more so, knowing that there
are no options of equal value. It will be absurd to venture the dark and the unknown, but it should be done in
order for us to retrace our steps to be able to achieve the Good.
Technology's initial promises proved to be true, regardless of its ramifications. All in all the human
condition improved, only if by improving we measure the level of comfort, various scientific breakthroughs,
and improved lifestyles of those who had luxury to afford to do so. Different machineries aid in prolonging
lives – assisting those with disabilities, honing efficiency in industrial workplaces, and even exploring the
universe for places we can thrive once all the earth's resources are depleted. As to the initial aims, it appears
that things really did not much differ.
It seems that human condition, although more sophisticated, is nothing but a rehashed version of its
former self. Nothing much has changed since then, and it appears that nothing will change in the times to
come if we fail to shift our view elsewhere. While it is true that technology offered us one compelling notion
of the truth and the good, we should be staunch in our resolve if we want to know the real one. For starters,
we might begin with considering other concepts, which corresponds to the Good, such as Aristotle's
conception of human flourishing. His notion entertains the idea of holistic enrichment of a person situated in
his society. A notable distinction on Aristotle's idea is his subscription on evaluative concepts called virtues
and their role in achieving the good life. Technological advancements are seemingly occurring in a rapid
pace that our mortality cannot quite keep up; no such consideration was given in this approach in achieving
the good life.
In Ancient Greece, long before the word "science" has been coined, the need to understand the world
and reality was bound with the need to understand the self and the good life. For Plato, the task of
understanding the things in the world runs parallel with the job of truly getting into what will make the soul
flourish. In an attempt to understand reality and the external world, man must seek to understand himself,
too. It was Aristotle who gave a definitive distinction between the theoretical and practical sciences. Among
the theoretical disciplines, Aristotle includes logic, biology, physics, and metaphysics, among others.
Among the practical ones, Aristotle counted ethics and politics. Whereas "truth" is the aim of the theoretical
sciences, the "good" is the end goal of the practical ones. Every attempt to know is connected in some way
in an attempt to find the "good" or as said in the previous lesson, the attainment of human flourishing.
Compared to his teacher and predecessor, Plato, Aristotle embarked on a different approach in
figuring out reality. In contrast to Plato who thought that things in this world are not real and are only copies
of the real in the world of forms, Aristotle puts everything back to the ground in claiming that this world is
all there is to it and that this world is the only reality we can all access. For Plato, change is so perplexing
that it can only make sense if there are two realities: the world of forms and the world of matter. Plato
recognized change as a process and as a phenomenon that happens in the world, that in fact, it is constant.
However, Plato also claims that despite the reality of change, things remain and they retain their ultimate
"whatness"; that you remain to be you despite the pimple that now sits atop your nose. Plato was convinced
that reality is full of these seemingly contrasting manifestations of change and permanence. For Plato, this
can only be explained by postulating two aspects of reality, two worlds if you wish: the world of forms and
the world of matter. In the world of matter, things are changing and impermanent. In the world of forms,
the entities are only copies of the ideal and the models, and the forms are the only real entities. Things are
red in this world because they participate in what it means to be red in the world of forms.
Aristotle, for his part, disagreed with his teacher's position and forwarded the idea that there is no
reality over and above what the senses can perceive. As such, it is only by observation of the external world
that one can truly understand what reality is all about. Change is a process that is inherent in things. We,
along with all others entities in the world, start as potentialities and move toward actualities. The movement,
of course, entails change. Consider a seed that eventually germinates and grows into a plant. The seed that
turned to become the plant underwent change – from the potential plant that is the seed to its full actuality,
the plant.
Aristotle extends this analysis from external world into the province of the human person and
declares that even human beings are potentialities who aspire for their actuality. Every human being moves
according to some end. Every action that emanates from a human person is a function of the purpose (telos)
that the person has. Every human person, according to Aristotle, aspires for an end. This end, is happiness or
human flourishing.
No individual – young or old, fat or skinny, male or female – resists happiness. We all want to be
happy. Aristotle claims that happiness is the be all and end all of everything that we do. We may not realize
it but the end goal of everything that we do is happiness.
In the eighteen century, John Stuart Mill declared the Greatest Happiness Principle by saying that
an action is right as far as it maximizes the attainment of happiness for the greatest number of people. At a
time when people were skeptical about claims on the metaphysical, people could not make sense of the
human flourishing that Aristotle talked about in the days of old. Mill said that individual happiness of each
individual should be prioritized and collectively dictates the kind of action that should be endorsed.
Materialism
The first materialists were the anatomists in Ancient Greece. Democritus and Leucippus led a
school whose primary belief is that the world is made up of and is controlled by the tiny indivisible units in
the world called atomos or seeds. For Democritus and his disciples, the world, including human beings, is
made up of matter. There is no need to posit immaterial entities as sources of purpose. Atomos simply comes
together randomly to form the things in the world. As such, only material entities matter. In terms of human
flourishing, matter is what makes us attain happiness. We see this at work with most people who are
clinging on to material wealth as the primary source of the meaning of their existence.
Hedonism
The hedonists, for their part, see the end goal of life in acquiring pleasure. Pleasure has always been
the priority of hedonists. For them, life is about obtaining and indulging in pleasure because life is limited.
The mantra of this school of thought is the famous, "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." Led by
Epicurus, this school of thought also does not buy any notion of afterlife just like the materialists.
Stoicism
Another school of thought led by Epicurus, the stoics espoused the idea that to generate happiness,
one must learn to distance oneself and be apathetic. The original term, apatheia, precisely means to be
indifferent. For the stoics, happiness can only be attained by a careful practice of apathy. We should, in this
worldview, adopt the fact that some things are not within our control. The sooner we realize this, the happier
we can become.
Theism
Most people find the meaning of their lives using God as a fulcrum of their existence. The
Philippines, as a predominantly Catholic country, is witness to how people base their life goals on beliefs
that hinged on some form of supernatural reality called heaven. The ultimate basis of happiness for theists
is the communion with God. The world where we are in is only just a temporary reality where we have to
maneuver around while waiting for the ultimate return to the hands of God.
Humanism
Humanism as another school of thought espouses the freedom of man to carve his own destiny and to
legislate his own laws, free from the shackles of a God that monitors and controls. For humanists, man is
literally the captain of his own ship. Inspired by the enlightenment in seventeenth century, humanists see
themselves not merely as stewards of the creation but as individuals who are in control of themselves and
the world is a place and space for freely unearthing the world in seeking for ways on how to improve the
lives of its inhabitants.
The ever – growing society has made people see technology as some form of necessity. Tracing back
its origin, the word "technology" came from the Greek word techne and logos which mean art and word,
respectively. Taking the two words together, technology means a discourse on arts (Buchanan, 2010). It
first appeared in the seventeenth century where the concept was only used to talk about the arts, specifically
applied arts. However, as technology progressed, the concept also started to have a wider range of meaning
where art is no longer the only topic included. Concepts like machine and tools were also attached to the
word "technology" which is the more popular sense of the concept nowadays.
The role played by technology these days are very crucial not only to a few but also to everyone. In
one way or another, each person in the society is directly affected by technology whether he wills it or not.
In fact, most people survive their everyday lives with great reliance to the different technological
advancements already available to the masses. While there may be some who would claim that their lives
are not greatly affected by technology, the fact cannot be denied that technology is already an inevitable part
of the society.
In general, technology keeps on progressing due to not the changing times and environment but also
to the ever – progressing mind of mankind. It would not be possible for all these technological
advancements to exist if it were not for the brilliance, creativeness, and power of the mind. However, it is
also important to note that anything too much is bad. The same problem is faced by technology. Although
it has been very helpful to people, it is still not immune to criticisms and backlash. Various ethical dilemmas
have been identified throughout time involving the use of different technological devices and its effects to
humanity. Usually, different problems arise when either the technological device available is misused or if
in the first place, it was invented to produce bad results. People who are aware of the possible dangers of the
use or misuse of technology are not keeping still. They lay these dilemmas for the public to see and realize
what they are in for.
A number of technological devices can be easily found inside the home, the most accessible place to
anyone. Having said that, it can also be easily inferred that these technological devices are some of the most
popular and most commonly used types of devices across all age groups. Almost all households, if not all,
own these types of devices. To be more specific, these "celebrities" in the field of technology are television
sets, mobile phones, and computers. People all over the world use these technologies every day to
accomplish different purposes.
First, according to Kantar Media, one of the most trusted television audience measurement
providers, in the Philippines, 92 percent of urban homes and 70 percent of rural homes own at least one
television set. It is for this reason why television remains to be the ultimate medium for advertisement
placements (The Manila Times, 2014).
Television was a product of different experiments by various people. Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, a
German student, in the late 1800s was successful in his attempt to send images through wires with aid of a
rotating metal disk. This invention was then called the "electric telescope" that has 18 lines of resolution.
After some time, in 1907, two inventors, Alan Archibald Campbell – Swinton who was an English
scientist and Boris Rosing who was a Russian scientist, created a new system of television by using the
cathode ray tube in addition to the mechanical scanner system. This success story gave rise to two types of
television systems, namely, mechanical and electronic television. These inspired other scientists to
improve the previous inventions, which led to the modern television people now have.
Second, Filipinos love to use their mobile phones anywhere, anytime. They use it for different
purposes other than for communication. More than half of the Filipino population own at least one mobile
phone regardless of type. In 2010, global research agency Synovate conducted a survey and declared 67
percent product ownership in the country. In fact, it was also claimed that mobile phones are considered a
must – have among young Filipinos. To prove that Filipinos really love to use their mobile phones, the
Ipsos Media Atlas Philippines Nationwide Urban 2011 – 2012 survey results showed that one in every
three Filipinos cannot live without a mobile phone. In other words, 30 percent of the Philippine urban
population nationwide said that mobile phones are necessities in life.
Mobile phones have a very interesting background story. On April 3, 1973, Martin Cooper, a
senior engineer at Motorola, made the world's first mobile phone call. He called their rival
telecommunications company and properly informed them that he was making the call from mobile phone.
The mobile phone used by Cooper weighted 1.1 kilograms and measured 228.6 x 127 x 44.4 mm. This kind
of device was capable of a 30 – minute talk time. However, it took 10 hours to charge. In 1983, Motorola
made their first commercial mobile phone available to the public. It was known as the Motorola DynaTAC
8000X (Goodwin, 2016).
Lastly, computers and laptops have also become part of many of the Filipinos households. There are
some Filipino families who own more than one computer or laptop. However, the number of computers or
laptops sold per year may not be as high as the number of mobile phones and television sets.
Just like television sets and mobile phones, computers and laptops also have a long background
history of trial and error. It was Charles Babbage, a nineteenth – century English Mathematics professor,
who designed the Analytical Engine which was used as the basic framework of the computers even until the
present time. In general, computers can be classified into three generations. Each generation of the
computers was used for a certain period of time and each gave people a new and improved version of the
previous one.
It was believed that the transition from a personal computer to a laptop was only a matter of design,
an improvement and a little deviation from the standard design of a personal computer. The first true
portable computer was released in April 1981. It was called the Osborne 1 (Orfano, 2011).
Some facts about Filipinos and their use of gadgets and the internet (Rappler, n.d):
Television sets, mobile phones, and computers or laptops all have different functions and roles
played in the lives of the people, although some may be a little similar. These roles have become so essential
that people more specifically Filipinos, developed a strong inclination toward technology and its products.
For instance, television is mainly used as a platform for advertisements and information
dissemination. In fact, television remains to be the most used avenue by different advertising companies not
only in the Philippines but also all over the world. It serve also as recreational activity and good stress
reliever to most families, specifically to Filipino families. Television also is a good platform for different
propagandas and advocacies. Lastly, it can also be a good way to bond with one's family members.
Mobile phones, on the other hand, also have their own roles in the lives of the people. They are
primarily used for communication. Mobile phones offer services like texting and calling. In the past, these
were the only functions of the mobile phone but as technology progressed, there have been many additional
features included on mobile phones. For example, in the present, people use their mobile phones to surf the
Internet and to take pictures more than to text or call people. Other applications include music player,
calendar, radio, television, and photo editor, among others. These are just some of the additional features of
mobiles phones in the present. In addition, it is very portable and converging because it can fit into any
space, may it be inside the pocket or bag.
Personal computers and laptops also have useful set of functions and roles. Although most of the
functions found in these technological devices are now also available in mobile phones, they still offer their
own unique features that make them attractive. However, for a lot of people, they prefer to do their job using
either a personal computer or a laptop than a mobile phone. One reason is that a personal computer or a
laptop has wide keyboard than using a mobile phone, especially when the mobile phone has a small screen.
Contrary to mobile phones, personal computers and laptops have wide screens and separate keyboards,
although some mobile phones can now be connected to a keyboard. Another reason is that availability of a
mouse or a touchpad made these two technological devices easier to maneuver than mobile phones. Lastly,
for the youth and those who love to play different computers games, personal computers or laptops are really
the better choice because these allow them to play with comfort and convenience.
While it is true that these technological devices are useful and beneficial, the fact remains that there
are several dilemmas faced by these "necessities". First, most parents would argue that these devices make
their children lazy and unhealthy. This is because of the fact that people who are fixated on these
technological advancements start and end their day by using such devices. They have great tendency to sit
and chill all day long without doing anything productive in their homes, thus making them unhealthy
because they do not just skip meals sometimes but also lack exercise or any bodily movements.
Another dilemma faced by these technological devices is the moral dilemma. People, especially the
children who are not capable yet of rationally deciding for themselves what is right or wrong, are freely
exposed to different things on television, mobile phones, laptops, or computers. Because of the availability
and easy access to the Internet, they can just easily search the web and go to different websites without
restrictions. This allows them to see, read, or hear things which are not suitable for their very young age.
This makes them very vulnerable to character change and can greatly affect the way they view the world and
the things around them.
The word "responsibility" in the sense of being accountable for and accountable to is very
appropriate to the ethics of technology because it makes each and every person in the scientific –
technological development a proxy with reference to one another. In other words, each person must indicate
the priorities, values, norms, and principles that constitute the grounds for one's actions and define one's
contribution to the scientific-technological event. The ethics of responsibility focuses on the positive rather
than the negative.
It is also important for the people in the scientific world to inform the masses of the dangers of their
contribution/s to the world of technology. In this way, the people will be sufficiently aware of what to do
and what not do. In addition to this, the agents using devices should also be accountable to and accountable
for their use of their gadgets.
Robots are now wide used. For example, there are the so called service robots. These particular
robots do specific tasks but focus mainly in assisting their masters in their everyday tasks. The International
Federation of Robotics (IFR) and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) made it their
task to formulate a working definition for service robots. A preliminary extract of the relevant definition is
(IFR, 2012):
A robot is an actuated mechanism programmable in two or more axes with a degree of autonomy,
moving within its environment, to perform intended tasks. Autonomy in this context means the
ability to perform intended tasks based on current state and sensing without human intervention.
A service robot is a robot that performs useful tasks for humans or equipment excluding industrial
automation application. Note: A robot may be classified according to its intended application as an
industrial robot or a service robot.
A personal service robot or a service robot personal use is a service robot used for a noncommercial
task, usually by laypersons. Examples are domestic servant robot, automated wheelchair, personal
mobility assist robot, and pet exercising robot.
A professional service robot or a service robot for professional use is a service robot used for a
commercial task, usually operated by a properly trained operator. Examples are cleaning robot for
public places, delivery robot in offices or hospitals, fire – fighting robot, rehabilitation robot, and
surgery robot in hospitals. In this context, an operator is a person designated to start, monitor, and
stop the intended operation of a robot or a robot system.
Germany was one of the first countries to develop service robots. As part of the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research's "Service Robotics Innovation Lead Initiative," it sponsored a
collaborative project called DESIRE (Deutsche Servicerobotik Initiative – Germany Service Robotics
Initiave) which was launched on October 1, 2005.
To achieve a technological edge toward attaining key functions and components that are suited for
everyday use
To create a reference architecture for mobile manipulation
To promote the convergence of technologies through integration into a common technology platform
To conduct pre – completion research and development activities for new products and technology
transfer in start – up enterprises in the field of service robotics.
1. "Clear up the kitchen table" – all objects on top of the kitchen will be moved to where they
belong;
2. "Fill the dishwasher" – the dirty dishes will be sorted correctly into the dishwasher;
3. "Clear up this room" – all the objects that are not in their proper places will be moved to where
they belong.
The earliest conception of robots can be traced around 3000 B.C. from the Egyptians. Their water
clocks used human figurines to strike the hour bells. This mechanical device was built to carry out a specific
physical task regularly. From that time on, different machines were already built that displayed the same
mechanism and characteristics as the robots in the present. However, the earliest robots as people know
them were created in the early 1950s by George Devol. "Ultimate" was his first invention from the words
"Universal Automation".
Robots play different roles not only in the lives of the people but also in the society as a whole.
Just like people living in the society, robots also have their own set of rules and characteristics that
define what a good robot is. These laws were formulated by Isaac Asimov back in the 1940s, when he was
thinking of the ethical consequences of robots. These are the following (Stanford, n.d.):
Law One:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come
harm.
Law Two:
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would
conflict with the First Law.
Law Three:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the
First or Second Law.
Just like any other technological advancements, robotics also faces different problems and dilemmas.
Although the idea is to help people and make their lives a lot easier than before, it is still not immune to
different ethical dilemmas and possible undesirable outcomes.
One of the dilemmas faced by robots is safety. Who should be held accountable if someone's
safety is compromised by a robot? Who should be blamed, the robot, the agent using the robot, or the
maker/inventor of the robot? It is important to know who should be blamed and who should be held
responsible if each thing happens.
Another ethical dilemma faced by robots is the emotional component. This may seem a little
absurd as of the moment, but looking at how fast technology progresses nowadays, it is not completely
impossible for robots to develop emotions.
In the field of robotics, there are the so – called partial autonomy and full – autonomy.
Using Asimov's laws for robots, it can be concluded that robots are ethical but only if they strictly
follow the laws specified. They are ethical mostly because the laws formulated by Asimov ensure the safety
of not only the users of the technology but also the people around him. Remember that these service robots
are already available to the public; thus, they can already be found inside the homes. Having said that, the
safety of not only the owner of the technology but also all the people inside the house should be the priority
more than anything else. In other words, the service robots only follow what their masters tell them to do
with great consideration to the laws formulated by Asimov. However, if the agent using the technology
misuses the robot to achieve personal agendas, then without a doubt, the agent should be held accountable
for any consequences it may bring. It is important to note that this is under the assumption that the robot
strictly followed the laws specified without any form of deviation.
If the problems arise when the robot deviates from the laws specified, then the maker or the inventor
of the machine should be blameworthy. It just means that the robot was not programmed very well because
it violated the laws. Other problems may arise when the machine develops the ability to think for itself. In
this case, the one that should be blame can both be the maker or inventor and the robot itself. This is because,
in the first place, the maker gave the robot the capacity to think for itself so he should be very much aware
of its possible consequences. To put it in another way, the maker programmed the robot in such way that it
can already think for itself even without an active participation from a human being. In addition, since the
robot thinks for itself, whatever decision it makes and whatever consequence it may bring, the robot itself
should be held responsible.
Exercise 2
1. Were we successful so far in trying to tie down technology with what we conceive as human
flourishing?
2. State a brief history or discovery that brought about the invention or discovery of the things stated
below. State their contributions in our scientific development.
a. Telescope
b. Processed food
c. Television
d. Radio
e. Internet
f. Cell phones
3. What would have happened to humankind if technology did not exist?
4. Does technology always lead us to the good life? How and why?
5. Should there be an ethics of technology? Do technological devices bring more good than bad to
people? Explain how.
REFERENCE:
Serafica, Janice Patricia Javier , et. al.(2018). Science, Technology, and Society. Rex Book Store, Inc. First Edition
CHARLITA P. COLANGAN
Course Facilitator