John Paul E.

Hadjirol Block A- BSCRIM 2nd Year

Article Review

Developing and Indigenous Ethic

Article Info

EJAIB Vol. 29 (1) January 2019

www.eubios.info
ISSN 1173-2571 (Print) ISSN 2350-3106 (Online)
Official Journal of the Asian Bioethics Association (ABA)
Copyright ©2019 Eubios Ethics Institute
(All rights reserved, for commercial reproductions).

Introduction

We came together as geneticists, scientists, medical doctors, lawyers,

bioethicists, philosophers, policy makers, youth, and civil society leaders to
consider what both our future children and our future society should look like,
to contribute to global reflection on the question of when and how ethical
human germ-line gene editing should occur and how it should be regulated. In
concordance with the Statements of the Organizing Committee of the First
(2015) and Second (2018) International Summit on Human Genome Editing,
we consider that “continued international discussion of potential benefits,
risks, and oversight of this rapidly advancing technology” needs to involve
persons from all around the world, including those at the margins, beyond the
more formal limits of National Academies of Sciences and Governments, and
should not be confined to academic elites. The participants at the
Intercontinental Summit share the commitment of the International Summits,
to fostering in-depth and international discussion about human genome
editing.
This Statement stems from the Intercontinental Summit on Human Gene
Editing and Human Genetic Engineering held in Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand from 30 January-2 February 2019.1 the Summit was
organized under the auspices of American University of Sovereign Nations; the
Center for Ethics of Science and Technology, Chulalongkorn University; Eubios
Ethics Institute; Accredited Universities of Sovereign Nations; and United
Nations Academic Impact.

Methodology

Reflecting on the statement of the Second International Summit on Human

Genome Editing, with focus on the organizing committee’s call for “an ongoing
international forum”, we strongly recommend expanding the scope of the call to
include international, national and private forums all around the globe to also
take part in the discourse and combine efforts to cope with the multiple
aspects of the subject of human gene editing. These fora should happen in as
many sovereign nations, communities and societies comprised of persons of all
occupations and different point of views, positions and calling, from those who
air on the side of caution against possible harm from unforeseen changes to
DNA, and those who consider the potential benefits outweigh the risks. These
fora should include those with eugenic goals of positive enhancement of human
beings, and those who consider editing DNA counter to nature or “playing
God”.

Given the narrowing distinctions between clinical research and therapy, we do

not share the view adopted by the 2018 Summit statement, that: “it would be
irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of heritable "germline" editing at
that time.” This statement is too rigid and too broad, even though we may
reject some cases. Rather case-by-case review by scientific and ethical review
bodies should be conducted in order to achieve and further implement the
international consensus expressed in the 1997 Universal Declaration on the
Human Genome and Human Rights, and in particular article 16,

Conclusions

Humanity must decide how best to use the astonishing power we are gaining –
through major advances in such fields as genetic engineering, cloning,
medicine, robotics and neuroscience – potentially to re-engineer our very
existence. In many ways we are being called to rethink what it is to be human.
Just how far should we go in modifying ourselves, and our children, in the
quest for intelligence, health, beauty, strength and entrepreneurial ability?
Many people reach the conclusion that if we allow cosmetic surgery than some
types of genetic enhancement without medical reason may also be ethical.

One of the underlying philosophical ideas of society is to pursue progress. The

most common justification for this is the pursuit of improved medicines and
health, which is doing good. A failure to attempt to do good, is a form of doing
harm, the sin of omission. This is the principle of beneficence. This is a
powerful impetus for further research into ways of improving health and
agriculture and living standards.

The principle of beneficence asserts an obligation to help others further their

important and legitimate interests. It means that if you see someone drowning,
providing you can swim, you have to try to help them by jumping in the water
with them. If you cannot swim, you have to try to find another way to save
them. If you could give everyone the ability to swim, just in case they fell

into the water, or had to struggle to survive in the wake of a tsunami, it would
seem to be basically ethical. When we consider the thousands of persons who
lost their lives in the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami simply because they could
swim (not counting those who were killed by the force of the waves), it would
have saved lives to simply give everyone the innate ability to be good swimmers
and survive in water, rather than relying upon being taught.

Beauty should be judged in the eyes of the beholder, and there are diverse
views of who is beautiful. However, there are social pressures in many
countries to conform to certain stereotypes of beauty.

The ethic of hard work and reward for studying hard is widespread in Asia.
Many parents will send children to cram schools and force them to study very
hard, and they are focused on the results of the examination systems. They will
also spend a lot of money on education in private schools. However, cheating in
exam systems is also found, as elsewhere in the world, although discouraged in
public.

References

Azariah, J. (1994) Global bioethics and common hope. In D.R.J.

Macer, Bioethics for the People by the People (pp. 98-124).

Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.

Bordo, S. (1993) Unbearable Weight: feminism, Western culture,

and the body. University of California Press.

Evans, J.H. (2002) Playing God: Human Genetic Engineering and

the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Faden, R.R. and Beauchamp, T.L. (1986) A History and Theory of

Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hsin, H-S.D. and Macer, D.R.J. (2004) Contrasting Expectations

of Biotechnology for Medical Care in Taiwan between

Seniors and Medical Students. Law and Human Genome

Review 20, 195-216.

Jakobovits, I. (1975) Jewish Medical Ethics, 2nd edition. New

York: Bloch Publishers.

Kung, J. (2010) Mochi Survey: Attitudes Toward Asian

American Cosmetic Surgery. Mochi 11 Jan 2010.

http://www.mochimag.com/2010/01/mochi-survey-

attitudes-toward-asian-american-cosmetic-surgery/

Dalai Lama XIV (1995) The Power of Compassion. A Collection of

Lectures by His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama. New Delhi:

Harper Collins.

Lo, W.H.Y., Han, S.M., Zhang, J. & Lee, J.L. (1994) A survey of

attitudes of people with higher education to genetics and

disease in Beijing. In N. Fujiki & D.R.J. Macer (Ed.),

Intractable Neurological Disorders, Human Genome

Research & Society (pp. 195-198). Christchurch: Eubios

Ethics Institute.

Gardner, W. (1995) Can Human Genetic Enhancement be

Prohibited? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20, 65-84.

Heine, S.J. & Hamamura, T. (2007) In Search of East Asian Self-

Enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review 11,

4-27.

Hughes, J. (1996) Embracing Change with All Four Arms: A

Post-Humanist Defense of Genetic Engineering. Eubios

Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 6, 94-101.

Lew, K.K. (1993) Attitudes and perceptions of adults towards

orthodontic treatment in an Asian community. Community

Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 21, 31-35.

Macer, DRJ., Akiyama, S., Alora, A.T., Asada, Y., Azariah, J.,

Azariah, H., Boost, M.V., Chatwachirawong, P., Kato, Y.,

Kaushik, V., Leavitt, F.J., Macer, N.Y., Ong, C.C., Srinives, P. &

Tsuzuki, M. (1995), "International perceptions and approval

of gene therapy", Human Gene Therapy 6, 791-803.

Macer, D.R.J. (1994a) Bioethics for the People by the People.

Christchurch, N.Z.: Eubios Ethics Institute.

Macer, D.R.J. (1994b) Universal bioethics and the human germ-

line. Politics and Life Sciences 14, 27-29.

Macer, D.R.J. (1998) Bioethics is Love of Life: An Alternative

Textbook. Christchurch, N.Z.: Eubios Ethics Institute.

Macer, D.R.J. & Chen Ng, M. (2000) Changing attitudes to

biotechnology in Japan. Nature Biotechnology 18, 945-7.

Macer, D.R.J. (2009) Efforts to overcome sex selection in Asia. J.

International Biotechnology Law 6, 122–132.

Macer, DRJ. (2012) “Ethical consequences of the positive views

of enhancement in Asia”, Health Care Analysis. 20 (4), 385-

397.

Parens, E. (1998) Enhancing Human Traits. Ethical and Social

Implications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Rai, J.S. Thorheim, C., Dorjderem, A., Macer, D.R.J. (2010)

Universalism and Ethical Values for the Environment.

Bangkok, Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in

Asia and the Pacific (RUSHSAP), UNESCO Bangkok.

Outka, G. H. (1972) Agape. An Ethical Analysis. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Sarwer, D.B. et al. (2005) Female college students and cosmetic

surgery: An investigation of experiences, attitudes, and body

image. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 115, 931–938.
 John Paul E. Hadjirol Block A- BSCRIM 2nd Year

Article Review

Ecological Health

Article Info

Economy and ecology are two important ingredients of human and societal
well-being. There is no sustainable economy without sustainable ecology.
Destruction of ecology will result in the death of economy, and eventually, of
the people. Just like other natural disasters that occurred in some parts of the
world such as typhoon, prolong flooding and drought, forest fires and even
earthquakes, Covid-19 can also be nature’s messenger sending us important
message – there is no human and economic health without ecological health.
Thus, making peace with nature is important not only for our economy but
also for our total well-being. Using Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics as
well as indigenous philosophy and belief system as regards to environment,
this paper will argue that ecological health is crucial not only for human health
but also for inclusive and sustainable economic development and also the
people’s capacity to deal with present and future pandemic like Covid-19.

Introduction

Last week, when the local border restriction in our province was lifted, I
decided to visit my small farm located in a far-flung village of Davao del Sur. I
found out that the land was already infested with weeds and grasses. But the
ginger seedlings, which I have already prepared and distributed strategically in
the farm lot before the lockdown, have managed to grow up along with the
weeds and grasses. So, I decided to just clean the surroundings of the ginger
and put additional soil on top of their roots. It took me four days to finish my
task. The local people gave their suggestion to me to just spray the area with
herbicides so that they will be clean and I do not have to spend much of my
time cleaning it. They even shared that almost all of them sprayed herbicides to
clean their farms and they were able to save time and money because they do
not have to hire plenty of people. I asked them why they are doing it, where in
fact, it will really destroy the natural fertility of the soil. They answered, “in
order that they can save, and eventually, will have more income.” As an
advocate of natural and organic farming, I became more motivated to show
them that, if they want to have sustainable income, they need to make peace
with their land, take good care of it and treat it like a human being that is so
dear to them. Before I procced with my arguments, I have to confess first that I
am not an economist. Hence, I am not good in computing and projecting
income per hectare or acre of a farm. Much more, in computing a GDP or GNP
of a country. As a development worker and an environmentalist, the many
challenges that confront societies today such as natural disasters like typhoon,
earthquakes, prolong flooding and also drought as well as the outbreak of
viruses which have been proven to have correlation with environmental
degradation and deforestation.

Methodology

In this paper, I will highlight the importance of ensuring the health of our
ecology if we want to have sustainable economy that will cater not to the
gluttonous wants of corporations and companies but to the equitable needs of
people and communities. To be able to do this, I will show that development
paradigms being advanced by capitalist economies cannot be sustained in the
long run because they will result to devastation of environment and the
depletion of natural resources. When ecology bleeds, economy suffers. When
economy suffers, the people, especially the poor, will be gravely affected. To
achieve economic health that is needed to answer the basic needs of all people,
ecology must be balance and healthy. When the ecology is healthy, it will not
only continue to produce resources needed for the economy, it will also provide
healthy air, water and living environment necessary for peace and well-being of
people and communities. When people are healthy, they can continue to
enhance their capacities to benefit from different opportunities to make their
lives and the society better.

The goal of the previous and current economic system of capitalist economies
is basically geared toward pushing for endless economic growth. It is of no
doubt that the proponents of this model want to help the society. But Raworth
points out how myopic the goal is and how this narrow measurement ignores
many of the important functions of any economic system such as equitable
distribution of wealth which basically affects the quality of life for people. She
then offers another perspective. She illustrates the economy as two circles, one
within the other. These two circles of the doughnut - the ecological and the
social are considered ceiling or boundaries from where people may judge the
impact of development or economic activities. If resource use and
environmental pollution are so high that they damage the planet, then the
economy is stepping above the planet’s ecological ceiling and is going outside
the outer ring of the Doughnut. On the other hand, if people cannot meet their
basic needs such as food, water, clothing, housing and even education and
other economic necessities, then the society or community is fallen inside the
inner ring of the doughnut. Thus, both social and ecological impacts have to be
measured across a range of different factors such as climate change,
biodiversity, health, energy access and others as staying within the doughnut
means staying in the safe and just space for humanity because the society
guarantees minimum social welfare while avoiding excessive environmental
damage.

Conclusions

It is important to reflect now how to balance environmental protection with

social justice especially in the aspect of redistribution of resources. While some
economists might argue that spending millions of moneys to restore health of
the ailing nature is detrimental to the poor as the money can be used to uplift
their standards of living, I will argue that restoring the health of ecology is
necessary not only for economic sustainability but also for human and societal
well-being. When ecology is healthy, the people experience peace and well-
being. For Shiva, recovering and protecting the commons such as forest, rivers,
mountains is vital to making peace with the earth, maintaining peace within
and between communities.

We have already enough framework to re-calibrate and re-tool our development

of economic model. But what we need now is a kind of “Metanoia”, a radical
conversion of mind and heart. Money and wealth will not necessarily give us
health and well-being. But healthy ecology will surely give us not only human
health but also economic health. The Doughnut Economics of Raworth already
shows us how myopic the goals of the many economic models. They are only
focused on endless economic growth for gluttonous consumption of industries
and people. But government leaders might still be reluctant to question this
paradigm of endless economic growth especially in the post Covid-19 world.
Industries and business companies often assume that their only mission is
accumulation of capital and profit. To reform the economic system, therefore, it
might help that we will continue to question and challenge some assumptions
as regards to economy, development and the good life, and then, develop new
paradigms that focus on harmony and balance between ecological health and
economic health.
References

Bayod, R. (2018). “The Future of the Environment and the

Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines under the Duterte
Administration”, Social Ethics Society Journal of Applied
Philosophy December 2018, pp. 229-253.
Bayod, R. (2020). “Communing with Mother Earth: Indigenous
Way to Care and Manage the Ecosystem”, Social Ethics
Society Journal of Applied Philosophy April 2020.
Breewood, H. (2018). “Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth:
3 lessons and 3 questions”,

http://www.theprogressmotive.org/doughnut-economics-
by-kate-raworth-lessons-and-questions/

Climate Council. (2020). “Infographic: how does climate change

affect bushfires?” https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/

resources/infographic-how-does-climate-change-affect-
bushfires/

Diprose, Kirsten and Neal, Matt (2020). “Jane Goodall says

global disregard for nature brought on coronavirus
pandemic”, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-

04-11/jane-goodall-says-disregard-for-nature-has-brought-
coronavirus/12142246

Foley (n.d). “Connection to Country”,

https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/connection-to
country
Gaspar, K. (2000). The Lumad’s Struggle in the Face of
Globalization. Manila. Philippines
Gaspar, K. (2011). Manobo Dreams in Arakan: A peoples’
Struggle to keep their Homeland. Ateneo de Manila University
Press. Quezon City.
Harrison, Max Dulumunmun (2013), My People’s Dreaming: an
Aboriginal Elder speaks on life, land, spirit and forgiveness,
Harper Collins Publishers, Sydney
Juniper, T. (2012). “Beyond Capitalism? Lecture Plymouth
Business School”, https://www.tonyjuniper.com/content/
beyond-capitalism-lecture-plymouth-business-school

Kasiyanna- Cultural and Survival (2020). “Particular challenges

of indigenous peoples in facing covid19”,

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/kasiyanna-
particular-challenges-indigenous-peoples-facing-covid19

Kumar, Satish. 2013. Soil. Soul. Society: A New Trinity of Our

Time. Leaping Hare Press.
Kessler M, Becker D, Peel A, Justice N, Lunn T, Crowley D, et al
(2018). “Changing resource landscapes and spillover of
henipaviruses”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1111/ nyas.13910
Martin G, Yanez-Arenas C, Chen C, Plowright RK, Webb RJ,
Skerratt LF (2018). “Climate Change Could Increase the
Geographic Extent of Hendra Virus Spillover Risk”.
EcoHealth, 2018; https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10393-018-
1322-9.
Mander, J. and Tauli-Corpuz, V. (2004). “Paradigm Wars.
Indigenous Peoples’ Resistance top Economic Globalization.
A Special Report of the International Forum on Globalization
Committee on Indigenous Peoples.”
Pascoe, Bruce (2018). “Mother Earth with Bruce Pascoe,” Eric
Rolls Memorial Lecture, https://www.nla.gov.au/stories/
audio/mother-earth-with-bruce-pascoe
Plowright RK, Eby P, Hudson PJ, Smith IL, Westcott D, Bryden
WL, et al (2015).
“Ecological dynamics of emerging bat virus spillover”,
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282
(1798), 20142124, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2124
Raworth, K. (2017). The Doughnut Economics: 7 Ways to think
like a 21st Century Economist, https://www.amazon.com/

Doughnut-Economics-Seven-21st-Century-
Economist/dp/1603586741

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.
Roberts, D. (2012). “The doughnut of justice: A new way to
think about growth”, https://grist.org/climate-change/the-
doughnut-of-justice-a-new-way-to-think-about-growth/

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å, Chapin, F.,

Lambin, E., . . . Foley, J. (2009). Planetary Boundaries:
Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology
and Society, 14(2). Retrieved August 4, 2020, from
www.jstor.org/stable/26268316
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Shiva, V. (2016). Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and
Knowledge, Berkeley, California.
Shiva, V. (2012). Making Peace with the Earth, Vandana,
Spinifex Press, North Melbourne.
Vidal, John (2020). “’Tip of the iceberg': is our destruction of
nature responsible for Covid-19?” The Guardian Australian
Edition, 18 March, https://www.theguardian.com/

environment/2020/mar/18/tip-of-the-iceberg-is-our-
destruction-of-nature-responsible-for-covid-19-aoe

Walsh, MG, Wiethoelter, A, Haseeb MA (2017). The impact of

human population pressure on flying fox niches and the
potential consequences for Hendra virus spillover. Scientific
Reports, 7(1), 8226, https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
08065-z,

WWF World Wildlife Fund https://www.wwf.org.au/get-

involved/bushfire-emergency#gs.46obrq

John Paul E. Hadjirol Block A- BSCRIM 2nd Year

Article Review

The Ethics of Technology

How can Indigenous Thought Contribute.

Article Info

Received: 17 February 2023 / Accepted: 17 February 2023

© The Author(s) 2023 J. Weckert Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia

Introduction

For many decades now, ethical discussion of new technologies has been
prominent both in the popular media and in academic literature. These
discussions have concerned medical technologies, genetics and computing
amongst others. Quantum computing is now emerging technologies has been
the focus, particular worthy of ethical examination.

Examination of specific uses of technologies has been the focus, particularly in

analytic philosophy. A common topic is privacy and its erosion through the use
of various information and communication technologies. Another current issue
concerns driverless cars and the decisions that they must make in potentially
harmful situations, one of just many important questions raised by
developments in artificial intelligence (AI).

Methodology

Our argument proceeds as follows: after having outlined in the introduction the
claim that the ethics of technology does not have the impact that it deserves,
we explain in the following section what we mean by the importance of values
in technology and how societal values can inhibit the effectiveness of ethical
argument regarding technologies. This is explained in terms of worldviews or
paradigms and their underlying values. We then consider the West- ern
materialist paradigm and how it affects ethical examination of technology. In
order to advance the argument that some change is needed, we then set out in
some detail an Indigenous way of looking at the world. This is designed to
highlight some important relevant differences between the two worldviews and
thus encourage more questioning of core Western values. The role of values in
technology has been much discussed in recent times, particularly with respect
to values in the design of artefacts. We are, as a culture, technological
optimists. Technological solutions are regularly seen as the first resort to
solving problems, even if these solutions lead to new problems which we solve
with further technology (discussed in This optimism drives the push for new
technologies, often it seems regardless of the consequences, whether or not the
technologies have many benefits or whether they solve any real problems. They
are worth having simply because they are new or novel. This seems to be
particularly so in the case of computer software, as Shira.

Conclusion

The reason that these expressed concerns have had limited effect, we will
argue, is because of our materialistic paradigm which is substantially a
technological paradigm. It is a technological paradigm in the sense that the
value of technology is generally not questioned and it is assumed that most
problems have technological solutions.

Discussing technology as we have in terms of worldview, faith, somnambulism

and forms of life, suggests a Kuhnian paradigm approach. According to
Thomas Kuhn, apart from times of scientific revolutions, scientists operate
within a paradigm, working on solving problems that arise within that
paradigm without questioning basic assumptions, that is, normal science
In this sense, a paradigm is a kind of worldview; a structure within which we
work without normally questioning the structure itself. This model fts well with
the current view of technological development and acquisition of technological
artifacts. There is very little questioning of this development; it is assumed that
it is good and here to stay. Any questioning tends to be restricted to the fringes
of society or where it is more mainstream, not powerful enough to overcome the
core cultural values. Using the analogy of the Ptolemaic view of the universe
illustrates the current situation. In the Ptolemaic system, the Earth was the
Centre of the universe and all the Starland planets revolved around it. This was
the generally accepted and unquestioned view and is analogous to the way that
technological development is viewed now. While it seemed to ft in with common
sense, it did not work so well. Many adjustments were needed for it to ft in with
more detailed observations, commonly by adding epicycles, often nested ones,
to the orbits of the planets. This way of solving problems is similar to the
efforts made to regulate the use of technologies in order to mitigate various
harmful effects and the attempts to find new technological ways of solving
problems created by previous technologies. It is also similar to the efforts made
to explain away the problems. The Ptolemaic system was challenged by
Copernicus, Galileo and others but their challenges met opposition from
entrenched beliefs in much the same way that challenges to technological
development are now.

We humans need technology not only to survive but also to flourish. It is not
clear however that all technological innovations are in the best interests of our
well-being. We have argued that ethical considerations concerning technology
do not have the traction that they should have because they frequently clash
with entrenched, underlying values of our worldview. Our suggestion has been
that some of these core values should be challenged and to assist in this have
outlined an alternative, an Indigenous worldview. While ethicists and
philosophers of technology cannot themselves change the current paradigm
within which they work, the Indigenous alternative can provide them with
different ways of looking at the world and at the role played by technology.

References

1. Coenen C, Grinbaum A, Grunwald A et al (2022)

Quantum technologies and society: Towards a difer-

ent spin. Nanoethics 16:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s11569-021-00409-4
2. Kop M (2021) Why we need to consider the ethical impli-
cations of quantum technologies. Physics World. https://

physicsworld.com/a/why-we-need-to-consider-the-ethical-
implications-of-quantum-technologies. Accessed 7 Sept

2022
3. Walsh T (2022). Machines behaving badly: The morality

of AI. LaTrobe University Press, Melbourne, in conjunc-

tion with Black Inc Collingwood

4. Weckert J, Valdes HR, Soltanzadeh S (2016) A problem

with societal desirability as a component of responsible
research and innovation: The “if we don’t somebody else
will” argument. Nanoethics 10:215–225

5. von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible innova-

tion. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J (eds) Responsible
innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science
and innovation in society. John Wiley, London, pp 51–57
6. van den Hoven J, Vermass PE, van de Poel I (2015) (eds)
Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design:
Sources, theory, values and application domains. Springer,
Dordrecht

7. Marx K (1935) The poverty of philosophy. Martin Law-

rence Limited, London
8. Drengson AR (1984) The sacred and the limits of the
technological fx. J of Religion & Science 19:259–275.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1984.tb00929.x
9. Pacey A (1983) The culture of technology. MIT Press
Cambridge, Mass, USA

10. Read R (2016) Wittgenstein and the illusion of “pro-

gress”: On real politics and real philosophy in a world of

technocracy. R Inst Philos Suppl 78:265–284. https://doi.

org/10.1017/S1358246116000321
11. Teschner G, Tomasi A (2009) Technological paradigm in
ancient Taoism. Techné 13(3):190–205
12. Weckert J (2021) Is there a new technological imperative?

In: Van de Voorde M, Jeswani G (eds) Ethics in nanotech-

nology. Emerging technologies aspects. De Gruyter, Ber-
lin, pp 21–40

13. Ovide S (2022) Trust me, you won’t use that new func-
tion on your iPhone. https://www.theage.com.au/busin

ess/companies/trust-me-you-won-t-use-that-new-funct
ion-on-your-iphone-20220621-p5avas. Accessed 7 Sept
2022

14. Weizenbaum J (1976) Computer power and human rea-

son: From judgement to calculation. Penguin Books,

Harmondsworth

15. Wiener N (1960) Some moral and technical conse-

quences of automation. Sci 131:1355–1358

16. Winner L (1986) The whale and the reactor. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago
17. Owen R, von Schomberg R, Macnaghten P (2021) An

unfnished journey? Refections on a decade of respon-

sible research and innovation. J of Responsible Innova-
tion 8:217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.

1948789
18. Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientifc revolutions
(2nd edn). University of Chicago Press, Chicago
19. Quine WV (1970) Philosophy of logic. Prentice-Hall
Inc, Englewood Clifs, NJ
20. Lakatos I (1974) Falsifcation and the methodology of
scientifc research programmes. In: Criticism and the
growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 91–196
21. GEN, Geneva Environmental Network (2022) The
growing environmental risks of e-waste. https://www.

genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/the-
growing-environmental-risks-of-e-waste/. Accessed 7

Sept 2022
22. Kilvert N (2021) E-waste surges in 2021 as world sends
goldmine to landfll. https://www.abc.net.au/news/scien

ce/2021-10-14/e-waste-electronics-landfill-gold-landfill-
recycling/100524744. Accessed 7 Sept 2022

23. Bainton N, Kemp D (2021) More clean energy means more

mines – we shouldn’t sacrifce communities in the name of
climate action. The Conversation. https://theconversation.
com/more-clean-energy-means-more-mines-we-shoul

dnt-sacrifcecommunities-in-the-name-of-climate-action-
170938. Accessed 7 Sept 2022

24. Kimmerer RW (2013) Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous

wisdom. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth

25. Stewart GT (2021) Māori philosophy: Indigenous think-

ing from Aotearoa. Bloomsbury Academic, London

26. Yunkaporta T (2019) Sand talk: How indigenous thinking

can save the world. Text Publishing, Melbourne

27. Gaspar K (2010) The masses are the messiah: Contem-

plating the Filipino soul. Research on spirituality series
no. 7, Institute of Spirituality in Asia. New Manila, Que-
zon City, Philippines

28. Agbayani R (1993) Some indigenous cultural traditions in

the Philippines: Their implications to environmental con-

servation. Kasarinlan 9:1 3rd Quarter: 54-69

29. Bayod RP (2020) Communing with Mother Earth: Indig-

enous way to care and manage the ecosystem. Soc Ethics

Soc J Appl Philos 6:71–90

30. Shiva V (2016) Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and
knowledge. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley
31. Talag MV (1988) The power called mother. The Manila
Chronicle (February 22):10
32. Pertierra R (1988) Religion, politics and rationality in
a Philippine community. Ateneo de Manila University
Press, Quezon City, Philippines
33. (2019) Developing an indigenous ethics: On recognition
and social justice. Eubios J Asian Int Bioethics. 29:8–14

34. Bible, King James Version (as in all other biblical refer-
ences in this article)

35. Pope Francis (2015) Laudato Si’: On care for our common
home [encyclical]. 2015. https://www.vatican.va/conte
nt/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_
20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.Html. Accessed 7 Sept
2022
36. Lemmens P, Blok V, Zwier J (2017) Toward a terrestrial
turn in philosophy of technology. Techné: Res Philos
Technol 21:114–126. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2017
212/363
37. Latour B (2021) The pandemic is a warning: We must
take care of the earth, our only home. Guardian, 25
December, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/

2021/dec/24/pandemic-earth-lockdowns-climate-crisis-
environment. Accessed 7 Sept 2022

38. Ortega Y, Gasset J (1961) Man as technician. In: History

as a system and other essays toward a philosophy of his-

tory (translated by Helene Weyl). W. W. Norton & Com-
pany, New York, pp 87–161

39. Weckert J (2013) Workplace monitoring and surveillance:

The problem of trust. In: Boylan M (ed) Business ethics,
2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 197–213
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps