CHAPTER

LESSON 2: HUMAN FLOURISHING REFLECTED IN PROGRESS

4 AND DEVELOPMENT

Lesson Objectives: At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
 identify progresses in human condition with the aid of science and technology;
 examine the role of modern technology in human flourishing;
 critique human flourishing in relation to the progress of science and technology;
 explain Hickel’s paradigm of “de-development”; and
 differentiate Hickel’s “de-development” from traditional notions of growth and
consumption.

ENGAGE
How do we know that we are progressing?
What are the indicators of development?

Your answer:

DISCUSSION
Humanity has come a long way from pre-history. We are more developed, much better as
compared than we were before. Advancements in medicine, technology, health and education
shows human flourishing. Below are data in some areas which show the development of humanity
due to the progress in science and technology. (Note: I advise that you analyze and interpret first
the graph before reading its description.)
1. Life Expectancy- This indicates the number of years in which humans are expected to live.
 We see in the graph that life expectancy increased. Aside from the reason that people
engage less in combats and are less likely to die in untreatable diseases now as compared in
the past, science is able to prolong lives by enhancing living status and discovering remedies
to most diseases. Distribution of medicine is also made faster and easier.

2. Mortality Rate- Mortality rate, also known as death rate, indicates the numbers of death by
place, time, population, or age.

We see in the graph that mortality rate, both for infants and ages 15-59, decreased as
we forward to the present. Based on the graph, we can also observe that highly developed
regions such as America and Europe has lesser mortality rate. Due to technology, lesser women
and children die during birth. Medical care for premature infants allows them to survive and
develop normally. Advancements in medicine and technology paved way in discovering cures
to several diseases.

3. Literacy Rate- As defined by UNESCO, a literate person is one who with understanding can
both read and write. Literacy rate indicates the number of people who are able read and
write. In the graph below, the blue portion indicates the percentage of literate while red
indicates the percentage of illiterate. We see that from 1800s, there are more illiterate persons.
But as we move towards the present, there are more literate persons in the world. This is a result
of a more accessible education.

Literate world population

Illiterate world population

 Life expectancy, mortality rate, and literacy rate are some indicators of human
development. Other than these, more often, progress and development is equated with growth
and greater consumption. The more that a population is able to consume, the wealthier it is.
Likewise, the more a person is able to buy, the higher he/she is on the development scale. The
planet, however, is already overburdened with human activities. If development is equated to
how much one can afford or obtain, our planet’s resources will not be enough to supply us. Let us
consider Jason Hickel’s paradigm of “de-development.”

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

by 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.
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.
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.
References:
Macnamara, D., Valverde, V., & Beleno III, R. (2018). Science, Technology, and Society. Quezon
City: C&E Publishing, Inc.
Mosteiro, Arnaldo P. Science, Technology and Society. Second Edition. Educational Publishing
House. 2006.
Serafica, J. J., Pawilen, G. T., Caslib, B. N., & Alata, E. P. (2018). Science, Technology, and Society.
Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Taguiling, M. (2019). Science, Technology and Society. Plaridel, Bulacan: St. Andrew Publishing
House.

Name:_______________________________________________________
Program, Yr., and Section:___________________

ACTIVITY 13:
Answer the following. Detach the worksheet once finished.

Questions for Reflection:

1. Why must we change our paradigm of growth and consumption to that of “de-
development”?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
2. Why are the terms of de-development, de-growth, and zero growth seemingly unacceptable
to the usual framework of human progress?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

People believe that the more they are able to purchase things and avail of services, the
more ‘developed’ and ‘progressive’ are the lives they lead. Yet, Hickel made it clear in his article
that huge consumption does not necessarily equate to long and happy lives. In this sense, is it
possible for people to also de-develop their consumption, but still remain happy and contented?
Accomplish the personal consumption audit table below and see what things you can reduce or
minimize without sacrificing, or even improving, the quality of your daily life.
 My Personal Consumption Audit
Average daily,
No. of hours/day
Product/ Food/ weekly, or Impact of this ‘de-developing’ on my
I reduce or do
Service monthly amount everyday living
away with it
consumed
By minimizing the number of hours I
Example: spend on social media, I can pursue
Social Media 8 hours/day 7 hours/day authentic personal interactions. I can
Usage also spend more time doing schoolwork
and helping in household chores.