Science, Technology and Society

Hand-out title: Biodiversity and Health Society

Biodiversity
Biodiversity, also known as biological diversity, is defined as the variety of life
forms present in the ecosystem. This diversity is often understood in terms of the variety
of plants (flora), animals (fauna), and microorganisms. The word biodiversity has a large
scope that also includes genetic, specific, and ecological diversity.
Three types of Biodiversity
 Genetic diversity refers to the variations of genes within the species. These
diversity gives variation within a population that are usually passed down from
parents to offspring.
 Specific diversity refers to the variety of species within a particular region. It is
influence by environmental conditions.
 Ecological diversity refers to the network of different species in an ecosystem
and the interaction of these species.
There are about 1.75 million species that are already identified and recorded by
scientists. However, some scientist believes that there are actually about 13 million
species, though estimates range from three to 100 million.
From the early times, when ancient philosophers of nature tried to explain all
things as coming from the elements of water, fire, air, or earth, science sought for the
common characteristics, a unifying element, in all of nature’s many phenomena. There
was a growing awareness of how all living things are related to each other. This was
achieved through an idea of biodiversity. This recognition started when naturalist began
to classify organisms in the natural world using taxonomy, a system devised by Swedish
scientist Carolus Linnaeus.
Taxonomy is the hierarchical system of classifying and naming organism. It
builds on the ability of the mind to find commonality in the diverse, the One in the Many.
Taxonomy is commonly used today and shows that though the living organisms in the
world are so diverse, they still share many similar traits and origin.
Even in the past, the society benefits from the biodiversity. Biodiversity provides
the provisioning services needed for the basic needs of man. However, society itself
has direct impact to biodiversity.

Changes in Biodiversity
Alteration in any system could bring varying effects. A change in biodiversity
could have erratic effects not only in wildlife or marine life but also in human beings. For
example, humans inhabiting the forest would disturb the natural order of life. Trees and
plants would be affected in the land-clearing operations where the houses would be
built. The animals, insects, and all types of life forms in the cleared area would either be
displaced or more likely be killed.
The loss of these life forms could affect the entire ecosystem governing the
environment. The food chain might be damaged and may have cascading negative
effects to human. Although for now it is not noticeable, it will slowly but surely affect us
on the long run. From this, we can clearly infer that when our ecosystem is not well
taken care of, biodiversity encounters changes that may impact human health on such
different levels.

Threats to Biodiversity
The changes in biodiversity results from the threats that cause loss of
biodiversity. Here we have included 5 major threats in biodiversity.
1. Habitat loss and destruction- major contributing factor in the inhabitation of
human beings and the use of land for economic gains. This kind of threat to
biodiversity includes, habitat fragmentation caused by highways, urbanization,
and even climate change.
2. Alteration in ecosystem composition- Alterations and sudden changes, either
within species groups or within the environment, could begin to change entire
ecosystems. Alteration in ecosystems are a critical factor contributing to species
and habitat loss. This includes introduction of invasive species and habitat
degradation that alters the ecological relationship of organisms to organisms
and/or environment.
3. Overexploitation- Over-hunting, overfishing or over-collecting of species can
quickly lead to its decline. Changing consumption patterns of humans is often
cited as the key reason for this unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.
The main cause of overexploitation is lack of sustainability of humans. Humans
use resources at will without thinking about the impact that it may have on the
planet in the near or far off future, only thinking of what they want and what they
need.
4. Pollution and contamination- Biological system respond slowly to changes in
their surrounding environment. Pollution and contamination cause irreversible
damage to species and varieties. Humans have the most contribution in pollution
of the Earth such as burning of fossil fuels, release of toxic materials, agricultural
activities, irresponsible waste disposal, and mining operations.
5. Global climate change- Both climate variability and climate change cause
biodiversity loss. Species and populations may be lost permanently if they are
not provided with enough time to adapt to changing conditions. The loss of
 biodiversity threatens food supplies, opportunities foe recreation and tourism,
and the sources of wood, medicines and energy. It also interferes with essential
ecological functions. Climate change is considered as a natural phenomenon,
however, its speeding up is not. The main cause for the speeding up of climate
change is the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere emitted by
anthropogenic activities.

Nutritional Impact of Biodiversity

As stated by the World Health Organization (WHO), biodiversity is a vital element
of human being’s nutrition because of its influence to food production. Biodiversity is a
major factor that contributes to sustainable food production for human beings. A society
or a population must have access to a sufficient variety of nutritious food as it is a
determinant of their health as human beings.
Nutrition and biodiversity are linked at many levels. Starting from the ecosystem
services up to the species and genetic diversity. One can say that biodiversity is the key
for nutrition. Nutritional composition between foods and among
varieties/cultivars/breeds or the same food can differ dramatically, affecting
micronutrients availability in the diet.
Habitat simplification, species loss, and species succession often enhance
communities, vulnerabilities as a function of environmental receptivity to ill health.
Healthy local diet, with adequate average levels of nutrients intake, requires
maintenance of high biodiversity level.
Intensified and enhanced food production through irrigation, use of fertilizer, plant
protection (pesticides), or the introduction of crop varieties and cropping patterns affect
biodiversity and thus impact global nutritional status and human health.

Health, Biology, and Biodiversity

Almost all living organisms are dependent to their environment to live and
reproduce. Basic needs of living organisms such as air, water, food and habitat are
provided by its environment. The evolution of human beings was due to the improved
access to these basic needs.
Advances in agriculture, sanitation, water treatment, and hygiene have had a far
greater impact on human health than medical technology. Although the environment
sustains human life, it can also cause diseases.
Environmental hazards increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, asthma, and
many other illnesses. These hazards can be physical, such as pollution, toxic chemicals
and food contaminants, or they can be social, such as dangerous work, poor housing
conditions, and poverty.
For example, unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation and hygiene are
responsible for a variety of infectious diseases such as schistosomiasis, diarrhea,
cholera, meningitis, and gastritis. Access to drinking problem is already a problem
worldwide. In 2015, approximately 350,000 children under the age of five died from
diarrheal diseases related to unsafe drinking water, and approximately 1.8 billion people
used drinking water contaminated with feces. More than two billion people lacked
access to basic sanitation.

Environment-Related Diseases
Some human illnesses that are found to be related with its environment include
Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
asthma, diabetes, obesity, occupational injuries, dysentery, arthritis, malaria, and
depression. Environment can affect the human health through food production causes
environmental damage from pesticides and fertilizers, soil salinization, waste produced
by livestock, carbon emissions from food manufacturing and transportation,
deforestation, and overfishing.
Hospitals used large quantities of electricity and fossil fuels and produced
medical wastes. To prevent some diseases, it may be necessary to alter the
environment. For example, malaria was indicated in the US and other developed
nations in the 1940s and 50s as a result of draining wetlands and spraying DDT to kill
mosquitoes.
According to experts, climate change could also have a serious impact on human
health and could deteriorate farming systems and reduce nutrients in some foods.
Climate change increases the risk of fatalities through natural hazards and illnesses
through increase temperature, more frequent heavy rains and even runoff. Indirect
effects also include decrease in food security, disrupt clean access to water, and
increase the chance of infection.
Relationships between human health and environment raise many ethical, social,
and legal dilemmas by forcing people to choose among competing values. Many of the
issues at the intersection of health and the environment have to do with managing
benefits and risks. For example, pesticides play an important role in increasing crop
yields, but they can also pose hazards to human health and the environment.

Reference:
Serafica, J. et.al. (2018). Science, Technology, and Society. Rex Printing Company,
Inc., First Edition, 2018.
THE GOOD LIFE

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

1. Define the idea of the good life.

2. Discuss Aristotle’s concept of Eudaimonia and Arete.
3. Recognize or identify innovative and creative solutions leading to a good life guided by
ethical standards

WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF LIVING A GOOD LIFE ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE?

 Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For Aristotle
Eudaimonia is only possible by living a life of virtue.
 Arete a Greek term is defined as “an excellence of any kind” and this also means “moral virtue”.
A virtue is what makes one function well.
 Aristotle also identified that there are 2 types of virtue: Intellectual virtue and Moral Virtue.

Intellectual Virtue or virtue of thought is achieved through education, time and experiences.
This also includes key intellectual virtues like wisdom, which guides a person’s ethical behavior.
Another is understanding which is gained through scientific endeavors and contemplation.
Intellectual virtues are acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills, which includes skills
learned from formal institutions.

Moral Virtue or virtue of character is achieved through habitual practice. Examples of moral
virtues are generosity, temperance and courage. Aristotle also explained that although the
capacity for virtue is innate, it is brought into completion only by practice. Example will be, it is
by repeatedly being unselfish that one develops the virtue of generosity.

 According to Aristotle both intellectual and moral virtue should be in accordance with reason to
achieve Eudaimonia. Indifference with these virtues for reasons that are only for one’s
convenience, pleasure and satisfaction leads human away from Eudaimonia.
 A virtue is ruined by any excess and deficiency in how one lives and acts.
 Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of Eudaimonia is the state of being
happy, healthy and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives and acts.

HAPPINESS AS THE GOAL OF A GOOD LIFE

 In the 18th 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.
MATERIALISM

 Democritus and Leucipus 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 of matter.
 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 or meaning of their existence.
HEDONISM

 The hedonist, for their part, see the end goal of life in acquiring pleasure.
 Pleasure has been the priority of hedonists.
 For them life is about obtaining and indulging pleasure because life is limited.
 The mantra of hedonism is “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.”
 Led by Epicurus, this 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 and Christian 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 outside
them.
  The motivation of the humanist current, scientists eventually turned to technology in order to ease
the difficulty of life.
 Social as an example has been so far a very effective way of employing technology in purging
time and space.

SUMMARY:

 Man is constant and consistently in pursuit of happiness and a good life.

 Every person has his own perspective on how to live and achieve a good life.
 The human soul needs to attain a certain balance between the intellectual and moral virtue to have
a purposeful meaning of what a good life should be.

Science, Technology and Society

Hand-out title : Why the future doesn’t need us
Prepared by: Andronica Jean F. Ambag

Bill Joy (1954 – ) is an American computer scientist who co-

founded Sun Microsystems in 1982 and served as chief scientist at
the company until 2003. His now famous Wired magazine essay,
“Why the future doesn’t need us,”

(2000) sets forth his deep concerns over

the development of modern technologies.[i]

SUMMARY : Joy traces his worries to a discussion he had with Ray Kurzweil at a
conference in 1998. He had read an early draft of Kurzweil’s The Age of Spiritual Machines:
When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence and found it deeply disturbing. Subsequently, he
encountered arguments by the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. Kaczynski argued that if machines do
all of society’s work, as they inevitably will, then we can: a) let the machines make all the
decisions; or b) maintain human control over the machines.
 If we choose “a” then we are at the mercy of our machines. It is not that we would give them
control or that they would take control, rather, we might become so dependent on them that we
would have to accept their commands. Needless to say, Joy doesn’t like this scenario. If we
choose “b” then control would be in the hands of an elite, and the masses would be unnecessary.
In that case, the tiny elite: 1) would exterminate the masses; 2) reduce their birthrate so they
slowly became extinct; or 3) become benevolent shepherds to the masses. The first two scenarios
entail our extinction, but even the third option is bad. In this last scenario, the elite would fulfill
all physical and psychological needs of the masses, while at the same time engineering the
masses to sublimate their desire for power. In this case, the masses might be happy, but they
wouldn’t be free.
Joy finds these arguments both convincing and troubling. About this time Joy read Hans
Moravec’s book Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mindwhere he found predictions similar
to Kurzweil’s. Joy was especially concerned by Moravec’s claim that technological superiors
always defeat technological inferiors, as well as his claim that humans will become extinct as
they merge with the robots. Disturbed, Joy consulted other computer scientists who, for the most
part, agreed with these predictions.

Joy’s worries focus on the transforming technologies of the

21st century—genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR). What is particularly problematic
about them is their potential to self-replicate. This makes them inherently more dangerous than
20th-century technologies—nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons—which are expensive to
build and require rare raw materials. By contrast, 21st-century technologies allow for small
groups or individuals to bring about massive destruction. Joy also argues that we will soon
achieve the computing power necessary to implement some of the scenarios envisioned by
Kurzweil and Moravec, but worries that we overestimate our design abilities. Such hubris may
lead to disaster.

For example, robotics is primarily motivated by the desire to be immortal—by downloading

ourselves into them. But Joy doesn’t believe that we will be human after the download or that the
robots would be our children. As for genetic engineering, it will create new crops, plants, and
eventually new species including many variations of human species, but Joy fears that we don’t
know enough to safely conduct such experiments. And nanotechnology confronts the so-called
“gray goo” problem—self-replicating nanobots out of control. In short, we may be on the verge
of killing ourselves! Is it not arrogant, he wonders, to design a robot replacement species when
we so often make design mistakes?

Joy concludes that we ought to relinquish these technologies before it’s too late. Yes, GNR
may bring happiness and immortality, but should we risk the survival or the species for such
goals? Joy thinks not.

NANOTECHNOLOGY
It is true that nanotechnology could theoretically satisfy all our physical needs, but that is
relatively true even under today’s technology. In fact, the quality of life has improved worldwide
for the past century or two.

In a recent Cambridge University conference, researchers revealed there is a 5 percent

chance nanoweapons will cause human extinction prior to the year 2100. The prospect of
weaponized nanotechnology is fairly new so elaboration is needed. Weaponized nanobots are
smaller than a pinhead and can be programmed to perform a variety of lethal functions. These
include: injecting toxins, targeted killings, and poisoning water supplies. One of the more
disturbing implications of weaponized nanotechnology is the advent of mini-nukes. These
nuclear bombs would weigh, at most, five pounds and would be easily concealable in a pocket or
purse. Louis Del Monte, a physicist and nanoweapons researcher, believes it is likely terrorists
will acquire some forms of weaponized nanotechnology in the late 2020s.

While the prospect of miniature nuclear weapons is frightening, the most dangerous aspect of
nanotechnology is the ability of nanobots to self-replicate. If self replicating nanobots were
released, they would become autonomous and would kill indiscriminately. In this manner,
nanobots would become something like a man-made, robotic virus.
 Despite reservations about the development of nanotechnology, Russia, China, and the
United States are currently investing billions into the development of nanoweapons. The atomic
bomb was the revolutionary weapon that defined the 20th Century. It seems as though
nanoweapons will be the defining weapon of the 21st Century.

GENETICS

The genetically engineered virus as the cause of humanity’s downfall, although equally
ironic, is perhaps scarier than the prospect of nuclear war because it is more of an unknown.
What is it? As the name implies, it is a virus that has been created or modified at a genetic level.
Scientists have started to toy with these viruses to treat other human illnesses, such as cancer. For
example, researchers in a lab could create a virus that targets and kills cancer cells, curing
patients without chemotherapy. But there are possible applications for just about any condition,
including alcoholism. Smithsonian Magazine reported that a genetically engineered virus could
reduce the urge to drink by introducing a certain gene into neurons that control behavior of an
addicted brain, and then manipulating them into encouraging or discouraging the problem
behavior

Like Hawking, some experts have been warning us about the dangers of these genetically
modified viruses and the risk of an infectious outbreak for at least a decade. One article in the
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health targets viruses whose DNA has been modified
as well as vaccines that use genetically engineered viruses. They “possess significant
unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards,” even to people who are not
the patient and to other species, the article says. And when the engineered viruses in vaccines
reproduce with their naturally occurring counterparts, they may “possess totally unpredictable
characteristics with regard to host preferences and disease-causing potentials.”

Bioengineered pandemic.

Nowadays, natural pandemics have

killed more people than wars. However,
 natural pandemics are unlikely to be existential threats: there are usually
some people resistant to the pathogen, and the offspring of survivors
would be more resistant. Evolution also does not favor parasites that
wipe out their hosts, which is why syphilis went from a virulent killer to
a chronic disease as it spread in Europe.
Unfortunately we can now make diseases nastier. One of the more famous examples is how
the introduction of an extra gene in mousepox – the mouse version of smallpox – made it far
more lethal and able to infect vaccinated individuals. Recent work on bird flu has demonstrated
that the contagiousness of a disease can be deliberately boosted.

Right now the risk of somebody deliberately releasing something devastating is low. But as
biotechnology gets better and cheaper, more groups will be able to make diseases worse.

Most work on bioweapons have been done by governments looking for something
controllable, because wiping out humanity is not militarily useful. But there are always some
people who might want to do things because they can. Others have higher purposes. For instance,
the Aum Shinrikyo cult tried to hasten the apocalypse using bioweapons beside their more
successful nerve gas attack. Some people think the Earth would be better off without humans,
and so on.

The number of fatalities from bioweapon and epidemic outbreaks attacks looks like it has a
power-law distribution – most attacks have few victims, but a few kill many. Given current
numbers the risk of a global pandemic from bioterrorism seems very small. But this is just
bioterrorism: governments have killed far more people than terrorists with bioweapons (up to
400,000 may have died from the WWII Japanese biowar program). And as technology gets more
powerful in the future nastier pathogens become easier to design.

GENETICS: 1. Reduces the Individuality among Humans

When there is a consensus as to which traits are good or bad, there is a tendency for future
generations to lose their diversity and individuality.If genetic engineering becomes a reality, it
will likely only be available to the richest members of society. They’ll be able to extend their
lives, limit diseases, and make sure their children are always healthy when they’re born.
 When this happens, natural selection is completely obsolete. Instead, the wealthiest in
society will thrive while the poor will die-out. Eventually, genetic diversity will completely
disappear as genetically engineered children all express the most desirable characteristics. There
will be no short people because being tall is more desirable. There will be no fat people because
being slender is more desirable. Ultimately, the reduction of undesirable traits in humans would
lead to a generation of “pure breeds” with very little capability of adapting to changes in the
environment as in the case of pure breed animals, which are prone to disease.

This problem also arises in nature if we decide to engineer plants and animals genetically.
These organisms might start as food, but could introduce themselves to the wild and take over.
They’ll decimate natural species, and eventually be the only thing left.

GENETICS: 2. Fixing mutations may just cause more mutations to occur.

Evolution occurs naturally every day, so humanity trying to tinker with that process may just
enhance it even more. This might mean new mutations may occur when the current ones are
being fixed.

GENETICS: 3. Overpopulation

Genetic engineering’s ability to expand life has a drawback in that it can cause
overpopulation. Earth is already showing the strains of suppporting too many people at once. It
can no longer sustain our needs because of overpopulation. Also, preventing natural death can
have serious implications for employment, living space, food and energy sources and more
beyond.

GENETICS: 3. Unintended consequences

 Genetic engineering holds a lot of promise fro brighter medical future bu it may have
unintended consequences. We do not know what the long-term consequences of human genetic
engineering could bring. Our attempts to save the human race might very well end up destroying
it.

ROBOTICS

STEPHEN HAWKING

Theoretical physicist and cosmologist

Stephen Hawking believed that robots
would replace humankind — and robotic
technology has been growing faster than expected.

Stealing our jobs?

There are currently 2.25 million robots in use worldwide, a report by Oxford Economics
suggested, which also said the number has multiplied over the past two decades. The top users of
insudtrial robots in 2017 were China, Japan, and South Korea, using nearly 50% of the world’s
stocks of robots. China is the top user of industrial robot, one of their famous robots are the robot
delivery vehicles which is actually use to help with the COVIS-19 emergency. With the outbreak
of coronavirus in Wuhan, a new role for the unmanned delivery vehicles emerged. These robots
transport medical supplies, deliver meals for doctors and patients and complete other emergency
tasks in the hospital. In Japan, robots worked as receptionist, cleaners and drink servers.

In a wide-use of robots or automated machunes, the global stocks would reach up to 20

million by the year 2030, with 14 million in China alone. China’s robotics industry is clearly
large, since China’s government has ambitious plans fot the contry’s robotics industry.
 The rise in robotic technology would boost economic growth together with productivity and
create new jobs in industries, but it also said this would cause millions of manufacturing jobs to
be lost to robots. About 17 million of manufacturing jobs has already been lost to robotsb since
2000.
The transition could be very painful. It’s no secret that rising unemployment has a negative
impact on society; less volunteerism, higher crime, and drug abuse are all correlated. Ther would
be lees volunteerism and higher crime. In a period of high unemployment in which millions of
people are incapable of getting a job because they simply don’t have the necessary skills will be
one reality.

Danger for humans?

There is no doubt that robotic technology has contributed much to mankind in various fields
of daily life. In any parts of the world, robotic technologies are everywhere. Robots enter our
homes such as personal robots. These robots are able to interact with human beings. Also, robots
have already taken over human roles in manufacturing inductries. However, there are plenty of
studies that have said robots pose a threat to mankind. One of these threat is robots will chnage
the workplace and the jobs that human’s do. Also, robotics have the capability to change the way
conflicts are fought from autonomous drones, remote and nanobot attack. Another one is the face
recognition capabilities.

In China and other countries, the police and government are invading public privacy by
using face recognition technology. These technology has the ability to monitor the global
informatin system from surveillance data and camera.

Stephen Hawking, an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author who died last
year, was concerned with the rise in robot automation. “If machines produce everything we need,
the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious
leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the
machine owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be
toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality,” Hawking said in a
Reddit session in October 2015.
Hawking’s approach to robotic development technology did not only focus on the industrial
fields, but also on people’s lives directly. He also believed that artificial intelligence may replace
humans altogether.

Superintelligence

Intelligence is very powerful. A tiny increment in problem-solving ability and group

coordination is why we left the other apes in the dust. Now their continued existence depends on
human decisions, not what they do. Being smart is a real advantage for people and organisations,
so there is much effort in figuring out ways of improving our individual and collective
intelligence: from cognition-enhancing drugs to artificial-intelligence software.

The problem is that intelligent entities are good at achieving their goals, but if the goals are
badly set they can use their power to cleverly achieve disastrous ends. There is no reason to think
that intelligence itself will make something behave nice and morally. In fact, it is possible to
prove that certain types of superintelligent systems would not obey moral rules even if they were
true.

Even more worrying is that in trying to explain things to an artificial intelligence we run into
profound practical and philosophical problems. Human values are diffuse, complex things that
we are not good at expressing, and even if we could do that we might not understand all the
implications of what we wish for.

Most researchers agree that a superintelligent AI is unlikely to exhibit human emotions like
love or hate, and that there is no reason to expect AI to become intentionally benevolent or
malevolent. Instead, when considering how AI might become a risk, experts think two scenarios
most likely:

First, the AI is programmed to do something devastating: Autonomous weapons are artificial

intelligence systems that are programmed to kill. In the hands of the wrong person, these
weapons could easily cause mass casualties. Moreover, an AI arms race could inadvertently lead
to an AI war that also results in mass casualties. To avoid being thwarted by the enemy, these
weapons would be designed to be extremely difficult to simply “turn off,” so humans could
plausibly lose control of such a situation. This risk is one that’s present even with narrow AI, but
grows as levels of AI intelligence and autonomy increase.

Second, the AI is programmed to do something beneficial, but it develops a destructive

method for achieving its goal: This can happen whenever we fail to fully align the AI’s goals
with ours, which is strikingly difficult. If you ask an obedient intelligent car to take you to the
airport as fast as possible, it might get you there chased by helicopters and covered in vomit,
doing not what you wanted but literally what you asked for. If a superintelligent system is tasked
with a ambitious geoengineering project, it might wreak havoc with our ecosystem as a side
effect, and view human attempts to stop it as a threat to be met.

In conclusion, we live, work and play with computational technologies that are autonomous
and intelligent. These systems include software and hardware with the capacity for independent
reasoning and decision making. They work for us on the factory floor; they decide whether we
can get a mortgage; they track and measure our activity and fitness levels; they clean our living
room floors and cut our lawns.We already know that machines are better than humans at physical
tasks, they can move faster, more precisely, and lift greater loads. When these machines are also
as intelligent as us, there will be almost nothing they can’t do—or can’t learn to do quickly.
Therefore, 99% of jobs will eventually be eliminated.

But that doesn’t mean we’ll be redundant. We’ll still need leaders (unless we give ourselves
over to robot overlords) and our arts, music, etc., may remain solely human pursuits too. As for
just about everything else? Machines will do it—and do it better.

While AI and automation may eliminate the need for humans to do any of the doing, we will
still need humans to determine what to do. And because everything that we do and everything
that we build sparks new desires and shows us new possibilities, this “job” will never be
eliminated.
Science, Technology and Society
Hand-out title : Genetically Modified Organisms: Science, Health and Politics
Prepared by : Pier Angelie Malate

Genetic engineering has been in the human society since selective breeding was introduced to
humankind and when animals were domesticated. Yet, the process of genetic alterations is all but
natural.

It was in 1951 that the term genetic engineering was coined by Jack Williamson, author of the
science fiction novel Dragon’s Island (Stableford, 2004). This was years before actual research
findings on the DNA’s role in heredity and its structure, the double-helix of Watson and Crick,
were published. Through continuous search for development, genetic engineering no longer
stayed in science fiction novel. It became a reality in science laboratory. The general process of
genetic engineering is the deliberate manipulation of the organism’s genes, where it may involve
transfer of genes from other organisms.
An antibiotic-resistant E coli bacteria was created in 1973. To date, there are ongoing researches
on GMOs such as using genetically modified male mosquitoes as pest control over female
mosquito carriers of Zika virus.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM

Genetically modified organism (GMO) is the term used for an organism created through genetic
engineering. The World Health Organization (WHO 2014) defines GMO as an “organism, either
plant, animal or microorganism, in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way
that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination.

GMOs in Food and Agricultural Industries

The Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health (CEEH 2013) identified the following
roles of GMOs in the food and agricultural industries:
1. Pest resistance – genetically modified plants to resist certain pests.
2. Virus resistance – genetically modified plants to resist certain viruses.
3. Herbicide tolerance – genetically modified plants to tolerate herbicide. An
example is round up, ready soybean, Glyphosate.
4. Fortification – genetically modified plants fortified with certain minerals. An
example is golden rice, beta-carotene.
5. Cosmetic preservation – genetically modified plants to resist natural
discoloration. An example is arctic apple.
6. Increase growth rate – a genetically modified organism that has higher yield in
growth than normal species. An example is aqua advantage salmon, pacific chinook
salmon.

GMOs in Non-Food Crops and Microorganisms

 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in non-food and some microorganisms involve in the
following:
1. Flower production – GMOs in flower production are seen in modified color and
extended vase life of flowers. An example is blue roses.
2. Paper production – modified characteristics of trees for higher yield of paper
production. An example is poplar trees.
3. Pharmaceutical productions – modified plants to produce pharmaceutical
products. An example is periwinkle plants, vinblastine.
4. Bioremediation – use of modified plants that can assist in the bioremediation of
polluted sites. An example is shrub tobacco.
5. Enzyme and drug production – use of modified microorganisms that can
produce enzymes for food processing and medicines. An example is Cyclomaltodextrin
glycosyltransferase (CGTase), Arteseminic acid.
6. GMOs in the medical field – genetic engineering is playing a significant role
from diagnosis to treatment of human-dreaded diseases. It helps in the production of
drugs, gene therapy, and laboratory researches. One classic example is humulin.

BENEFITS OF GMOs

• Higher efficiency in farming

• Increase in harvest
• Control in fertility
• Increase in food processing
• Improvement of desirable characteristics – GMOs offer longer shelf life,
enhanced color and taste, enhanced production or reduction of enzymes, and other
modified characteristics of plants, animals and microorganisms.
• Nutritional and pharmaceutical enhancement
• Reduce the use of fertilizer and pesticides

POTENTIAL RISKS OF GMOs

Opponents of GMOs have the following concerns:

1. Since genetic engineering is still a young branch of science, there are inadequate
studies on the effects of GMOs to humans and the environment.
2. Genetic engineering promotes mutation in organisms which the long term effect is
still unknown.
3. Human consumption of GMOs might have the following effects:
• More allergic reactions
• Gene mutation
• Antibiotic resistance
• Nutritional value

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS CAUSED BY GMOs

1. Risk in gene flow

 2. Emergence of new forms of resistance and secondary pests and weed problems
3. Recombination of virus and bacteria to produce new pathogens

OTHER DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS CAUSED BY GMOs

Direct environmental risks are:

• Introduction of the GMOs in the natural environment may cause
disruption of the natural communities through competition or interference;
• The possibility of unexpected behaviour of GMOs in the environment if it
escapes its intended use and may post threats or become pests;
• May cause harmful effects to ecosystem process if GMOs interfere with
the natural biochemical cycles; and
• The persistence of GMO genes after its harvest which may cause negative
impacts to the consumer of GMO products.

Indirect environmental risks are:

• Alteration of agricultural practices like managing negative impacts of
GMOs to the environment such as evolution of insects, pests, and weeds that
became resistant to GMO crops;
• May have impacts on biodiversity caused by the alteration in agricultural
practices; and
• May have varied environmental impacts due to GMOs interaction and
release in the natural environment.

POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH RISKS CAUSED BY GMOs

• Consumption of GMOs may have adverse effects since it is not naturally or

organically produced;
• Consumption of GMOs may alter the balance of existing microorganisms in the
human digestive system;
• Production of toxins may be detrimental to human health; and
• Production of allergens may have adverse effects on humans.

OTHER POTENTIAL RISKS THAT RAISE MAJOR CONCERNS ARE:

• Human Genome Project (HGP)

• Mutation of genetically engineered microorganisms
• Cloning

BIOSAFETY ON GMOs

• The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is an intergovernmental body

that develops the Codex Alimentarius, know us the International Food Code. Codex is
responsible for the development of standards, codes, practices, guidelines, and
recommendations on food safety.
 • Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Established in 2003, Cartagena Protocol is an
international environmental treaty that regulates the transboundary movements of Living
Modified Organisms (LMOs). The Cartagena Protocol requires exporters to seek consent
from the importers before its first shipment of LMOs.
• International Trade Agreement on labelling of GM food and food products.
The agreement requires exporters of GM food and food products to label their products
and give rights to importing parties to reject or accept the GM products.

GMOs IN PHILIPPINE CONTEXT

The GMO concern started in the 1990s with the creation of the National Committee on
Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) through Executive Order No. 430 of 1990. The NCBP
developed the guidelines on the planned release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and
potentially harmful exotic species in 1998. In 2002, the Department of Agriculture release
Administrative Order No. 8, the guideline for the importation and release into the environment of
GM plants and plant products. On that same year, the entry of GMO importation started
(Baumuller, 2003). The Philippines was marked to be the first country in Asia to approved
commercial cultivation of GMOs when GM corn planting was approved in 2002 (Serapio &
Dela Cruz, 2016).

From December 2002 to present, there are 70 GMO applications approved by the Department of
Agriculture for the release to the environment, 62 GMOs of which are approved for food feed
and processing and the remaining 8 were approved for propagation (Aruelo, 2016).

In 2004, the Philippines was classified by International Service for acquisition of agribiotech
applications as one of the fourteen biotech-mega countries which grows 50,000 hectares or more
of GMO crops annually (James, 2004). In that same year, Senator Juan Flavier authored a bill on
the mandatory labelling of food and food products with GMOs. The Senate did not pass the bill.

In 2006, the Philippines became part of the Cartagena Protocol on Bioosafety. In the same year,
Executive Order No 514 was issued to address the biosafety requirements of the Cartagena
Protocol and the establishment of the National Biosafety Framework (NBF).

In 2010, the Organic Agriculture Act was issued, encouraging agriculture than GMO-
related agriculture. Prior to this act, there are several provinces like Negros Occidental and
Negros Oriental which agree to support organic agriculture. There was the establishment of the
Negros Organic Island through memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the two provinces
on 2005. With this MOA, the two provinces were able to ban the netry of GMOs and living
GMOs to their provinces through provincial ordinance. Similar to this case, Davao City passed
the Organic Agriculture Ordinance in 2010. This city ordinance helps the prevention of field
testing of GM Bt eggplant in the UP Mindanao Campus (Aruelo, 2016).

In 2012, Representative Teddy Casino, together with other congressmen, filed a bill pushing for
the mandatory labelling of GM food and food products. To date, there is no Philippine biosafety
law, only biosafety regulations formed under NBF.
A study in the regulations of the Philippines concluded that the existing regulation is weak,
which can be fixed through legislations such as a republic act (Richmond, 2006).

In December 2015, the Supreme Court ordered to put an end to the field testing of GMO Bt
eggplant and declared Administrative Order No. 8, series of 2002 of the Department of
Agriculture as null and void. This means any actions or procedures related to GMO importations
and propagations is temporarily put to stop until a new administrative order is issued in
accordance with the law.

In March 7, 2016, five government agencies, namely, Department of Science and Technology,
Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of
Health and Department of the Interior and Local Government, passed a Joint Department
Circular No. 1 series of 2016 on rules and regulations for the research and development,
handling and use, transboundary movement, release in the environment, and management of the
genetically modified plant and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology.
This joint department circular paves way to issuance of new permits for planting and importing
GM crops in the country.