Module 5

HUMAN FLOURISHING AND DE-DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

This module presents Jason Hickel‟s

development framework focused on de-development. As
a departure from traditional frameworks of growth and
development, Hickel‟s concept of de-development is
discussed as an alternative to narrowing the gap between
rich and poor countries. Thus, taking off from this
alternative framework, the section critiques human
flourishing vis- a-vis progress in science and technology.

COMPETENCY #5. Explain human flourishing vis-a-

vis the progress of science and technology so that
student can define for himself/herself the meaning of the
good life.

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of this module, students should be able to:

1. Discuss human flourishing in the context of progress in science and technology;

2. Explain de-development as a progress and development framework; and
3. Differentiate between traditional frameworks of progress and development and
Hickel‟s concept of de-development.

Definition of Terms

De-development- a process which undermines or weakens the ability of an economy to

grow and expand by preventing it from accessing.

Human flourishing- an effort to achieve self-actualization and fulfilment within the

context of a larger community of individuals, each with the right to pursue his or her own
such efforts.
INITIAL TASK:

Instruction: Examine the picture and answer the

following questions.

Recent researchers found that 70% of people in

middle-and high-income countries believe that
overconsumption is putting the planet and society
at risk. Form groups with three members each and discuss your thoughts during online class
about the following:

1. How do you think overconsumption puts the planet and society at risk?
2. What are the manifestations of society‟s tendency to overproduce and over consume?
3. Should middle-and high-income countries regulate their growth and consumption?
Why or why not?

CONTEXT

Despite efforts to close out the gap between the

rich and poor countries, a BBC report in 2015 stated
that the gap in growth and development just keeps on
widening. Although there is no standard measure of
inequality, the report claimed that most indicators
suggest that the widening of the growth gap slowed
during the financial crisis of 2007 but it is now
growing again. The increasing inequality appears
paradoxical having in mind the efforts that had been
poured onto the development programs designed to
assist poor countries to rise from absent to slow
progress.

With this backdrop and in the context of unprecedented scientific and technological
advancement and economic development, human must ask themselves whether they are indeed
flourishing, individually or collectively. If development efforts to close out the gap between the
rich and poor countries have failed, it is possible to confront the challenges of development
through a nonconformist framework?

In the succeeding article, Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at a London School of

Economics, criticizes the failure of growth and development efforts to eradicating poverty seven
decades ago. More importantly, he offers a nonconformist perspective toward growth and
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 ( SDG‟s). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyonce‟, 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 economist 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
biocapacity by more than 50% each year.

In other words, growth is not an option any more- we‟ve already grown too much.
Scientist is 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 standardized 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 consumed about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares –
many times their fair share.

What does this means 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 yield
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 over
consumption are 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
through 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 organizing 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 its 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
intervention 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.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS (SAQs)

After reading Hickel‟s article on the concept of de-development, answer the following questions
in two or three sentences.

SAQ #1. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about? (15%)
SAQ #2. How is the de-development framework different from traditional frameworks of
development? (15%)
SAQ #3. According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop? (10%)

SUMMARY

We tend to imagine that the poverty of poor countries has to do with their internal
domestic problems – maybe its corruption, or weak institutions. Of course, that has something to
do with it. But we too often ignore the much more significant external forces that perpetuate
poverty. Take the debt system, for example. Poor countries have to bend to the wishes of
creditors and investors, who prohibit the use of tariffs, subsidies, capital controls and regulations
– key tools that Western countries used to build their own economies.
.

EVALUATION

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. For
your guidance, the first row has been provided as an example. (60%)
 My Personal Consumption Audit
Product/Food Average daily, No. of hours/day I Impact of this ‘de-
weekly or monthly reduce/ do away developing’ on my
amount consumed with everyday living
Example: By minimizing the number of
Social Media Usage Eight (8) hours/day Seven(7) hours/day hours I spend on social media,
I can pursue authentic personal
interactions. I can also spend
more time doing schoolwork
or helping in household chores
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

ASSIGNMENT:

Documentary Film Analysis

Instructions: Watch and take notes on the documentary film, The Magician‟s Twin: C.S. Lewis
and the Case Against Scientism, available on Youtube ( https//www.youtube.com/?
=FPeyJvXU68k). Then answer the following questions: (50%)

1. Why was C.S. Lewis very much a skeptic and critic of scientism? Was he
against science?
2. How did C.S. Lewis explain the following:
A. Science as religion
B. Science as credulity
C. Science as power
3. Why did C.S Lewis think that modern science is far more dangerous than magic?

REFERENCE

Science, Technology and Society book by Quinto, E.J., and Nieva, A. D.(2019).
 SHEPHERDVILLE COLLEGE
(FORMERLY JESUS THE LOVING SHEPHERD CHRISTIAN COLLEGE)
Talojongon, Tigaon, Camarines Sur, Philippines

College of Education
Activity Sheet No.5

Name: Course & Section: Date:

After reading Hickel‟s article on the concept of de-development, answer the following questions
in two or three sentences.

SAQ #1. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about? (15%)
ASAQ:

SAQ #2. How is the de-development framework different from traditional frameworks of
development? (15%)
ASAQ:

SAQ #3. According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop? (10%)
ASAQ:

EVALUATION

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. For your
guidance, the first row has been provided as an example. (60%)

My Personal Consumption Audit

Product/Food Average daily, No. of hours/day I Impact of this ‘de-
weekly or monthly reduce/ do away developing’ on my
amount consumed with everyday living
Example: By minimizing the number of
Social Media Usage Eight (8) hours/day Seven(7) hours/day hours I spend on social media,
I can pursue authentic personal
interactions. I can also spend
more time doing schoolwork
or helping in household chores
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

ASSIGNMENT:

Documentary Film Analysis

Instructions: Watch and take notes on the documentary film, The Magician‟s Twin: C.S. Lewis
and the Case Against Scientism, available on Youtube ( https//www.youtube.com/?
=FPeyJvXU68k). Then answer the following questions: (50%)

4. Why was C.S. Lewis very much a skeptic and critic of scientism? Was he
against science?
5. How did C.S. Lewis explain the following:
D. Science as religion
E. Science as credulity
F. Science as power
6. Why did C.S
and Nieva, A. D.(2019).