Reading Comprehension Task (p.

87)

1. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about?

The framework is all about equalizing the level of developments of different countries, not
through growth, but by efficient living. Instead of pushing developing countries to “catch up”
with richer nations, the framework suggests rich countries to “catch down” to a more
appropriate, non-excessive level of development.

2. How is the de-development framework different from traditional frameworks of development?

It is different because it focuses more on the real essence of life instead of economic growth.
For centuries, our world sees growth as the main driver of development. However, it’s proven to
be ineffective and the only plausible reason is the overconsumption of richer nations. Because
of this, Hickle’s proposed framework encourages adequacy over excess income and
consumption.

3. According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop?

As proposed by Hickle, rich countries can de-develop by reducing their consumption rate to a
less excessive use of resources. This can be achieved by thinking of ways to get rich countries to
catch down to the appropriate level of development – living efficiently and happily. Such
happenings can lead to global equality because it provides more opportunities to other
countries.

4. Why does Hickel frown upon pundits using terms such as de-growth, zero growth, or de-
development in describing an alternative framework?

Describing the status of a country’s development using those terms are technically accurate but
off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run
opposite from the traditional framework we use regarding human progress and the purpose of
life itself. For some, it may seem like asking people to stop moving progressively in life –
learning, improving, and growing – to let other people ‘catch up’.

5. Some people might think that de-development is about giving things up. How does Hickel explain
that this is not the case?

It is actually not about giving anything up, and it's absolutely not about forcing people to live
miserable lives on purpose or put severe limitations on their potential. Instead, it's about
developing a deeper awareness of our purpose in this planet and its corresponding motivations.
Hickle also emphasized the need for greater awareness of what constitutes development and
the need to prioritize life quality and a more promising future above quantity.
 Personal Consumption Audit (p. 89)

My Personal Consumption Audit

Average daily, weekly, Impact of this ‘de-

No. of hours / day I
Product / Food or monthly amount developing’ on my
reduce / do away with
consumed everyday living

By minimizing the number

Watching movies of hours I spend watching,
Four (4) hours daily Two (2) hours daily
and series I can work out more and
be physically active.

By minimizing the number

of hours I spend playing
Playing mobile
Two (2) hours daily One (1) hour daily games, I can hone my skills
games
and practice playing my
instruments.

By minimizing the amount

of sweets I eat, I can
Eating candies and Two (2) to Three (3)
One (1) pack per week reduce my sugar intake
chocolates packs per week
and lessen the risk of
getting sick.

By minimizing the number

of hours I spend on social
media, I can allot more
Use of social media Five (5) hours daily Two (2) hours daily
time catching up with my
friends physically. I can
also read my Bible more.

By minimizing my plastic
usage or by using
Four (4) bags per half One (1) reusable plastic alternatives such as eco-
Use of Plastic Bags
a month bag per month bags, I can lessen plastic
waste and help the
environment/
 Documentary Analysis (p. 93)

1. Why was C. S. Lewis very much a skeptic and critic of scientism? Was he against science?
- C.S. Lewis wasn't against science per such, but he was skeptical of scientism since, in his opinion,
the natural sciences' method ought to be the norm for other academic subjects. He also
believed that because of this materialistic viewpoint, people could corrupt the ways they use.

2. How did C. S. Lewis explain the following?

a. Science as religion
o He described science as something that gives an enchanted essence to ordinary ideas,
making one believe in a higher being and giving one a sense of meaning, which is the
same ideology of what religion is - seen everywhere and affects all aspects of life. He
also believed that since science may provide nonreligious individuals a different belief
that there is something superior to humans, science could serve as a substitute for
religion.

a. Science as credulity
o He said that people are naive and credulous and would believe anything told to them if
connected with the word "science," even if there were no justifications or supporting
data.

b. Science as power
o He described science as power is dangerous because it works. Particularly in terms of
the modern sciences, where it is conceivable to control and have influence over
individuals in particular if one has the necessary tools.

3. Why did C. S. Lewis think that modern science is far more dangerous than magic?
- Science is far riskier than magic since magic fails. On the other hand, modern science has the
capacity to manage, control, and wield influence over individuals when given the proper
instruments and procedures.

4. Why did C. S. Lewis become increasingly concerned about the rise of scientocracy? How does
scientocracy relate to scientism?
- As a result of scientocracy - a C.S. Lewis’ wordplay of science and autocracy - an elite group of
experts who claim to speak for science take control of culture and politics. We cannot ensure
that if we provide it to them, they won't use it to further their own interests. Moreover,
scientism is connected to scientocracy in which they both assert that science elevates them
above customs.
5. Based on what you learned in the documentary film, how does scientism pose a threat to the human
person flourishing in science and technology? Why should science be guided by an ethical basis that
is not dictated by science itself?
- Scientism is dangerous because it would inflict harm to all types of individuals, regardless of
their status, because it holds that science should be the basis for all choices. Science should be
guided by an ethical foundation since it may be applied to our lives in so many different ways.
Without proper ethical foundation, science's applications could be utilized for immoral activities.