Scientific, Social, and Socioeconomic evolution – A moral dilema

What would human life be like if scientific evolution hadn’t taken place? If there was no alternative to what it was? Isn’t development, wanting to know, and seeking answers part of the Human’s essence? Wouldn’t we be reducing life to insignificance if we weren’t able to at least try to evolve?

When studying the role of science in the development of societies, it’s clear that it was objectively significant for our lifestyle. Social evolution and socioeconomic evolution have brought, especially to societies that are more developed today, a new stage: a stage in which medicine is accessible and physical work is easier. However, as mentioned above, this benefits mainly societies currently more developed. This development is due not only to the monetary value of these societies, but also to scientific evolution. The problem arises when some societies benefit more from scientific evolution than others.

Has society developed in a way that Humans began to trivialize their feeling of omnipotence? To put our greed of knowledge and wanting more, above our needs? Do we need flying cars, or is it just a luxury we’ve learned to accept as a sign of development?
Is it possible to measure human development in terms of material goods? Or is it the development that human beings have always awaited one that allows us to empathize with others, one that humbles us and guides us along a moral path that would make the philosophers of ancient Greece proud?

The contribution of science to the development of society is unquestionable: it has enabled advances in the fields of health, food, environment, technology, energy, and many others, improving the quality of life.
In the 16th century, with an epistemological break in science, there was a social change. It was marked by skepticism in the effectiveness of scientific methods. With the presentation of the Heliocentric model, the Earth, where God had placed his best creation (Humanity), was suddenly “removed” from the center of the Universe and replaced by the sun. Initially, the consequences of this event were mostly at the centers of established power, which reacted violently, as shown by the processes to which various scientists were submitted, and the irrational condemnations they were subjected to. In the realm of science, there was a rapidly growing demand for new explanations for natural phenomena: those representing alternatives to justifications on religious grounds, which limited knowledge to interpretations of a religious nature.
Thus, it is recognized that science was present in most of the circumstances that conditioned the evolution of man, especially in richer or more industrialized countries. In this way, the importance of reflecting on the need for science and technology is highlighted.

The following question is raised: would the world without these goods be better than what we know? There are several ways to answer this question, but it is close to impossible to reach a consensus.
It is unanimous, however, that social evolution and socioeconomic evolution are related to scientific evolution. But, it was the people’s discontent concerning the answers that the Church provided – which later proved to be false, such as the example of Heliocentrism given at the beginning – the reason for the abandonment of religious thought in scientific sectors and the adoption of thoughts with scientific bases?

When comparing the current world with another created by our imagination, without the influence of scientific development, the conclusion does not seem difficult: the evolution of science has contributed to the transformation of society. So we can live better and have a better life quality, with the development of medical studies. The resources provided by technological evolution in this area and many others, such as in the labor, leisure and domestic sectors, in the creation and distribution of medicines, and the development of international relations. Scientific evolution was thus beneficial to all areas of human life.

However, we must consider the following: has science developed to the point where human beings see this resource as a means of discrimination against less capable people and societies? It is considered that the essence of Man varies between selfishness and aggressiveness: how does this influence the world, and how does scientific evolution fit into this matter? It is known that planet Earth provides the necessary resources to sustain all forms of life. However, there is a huge deficit in the distribution of world wealth, meaning that millions of people do not have access to what is guaranteed to them in the Human Rights Letter. According to Público newspaper, “The 26 richest have as much money as the poorest half of the world’s population” (2019). During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the fortunes of the world’s billionaires reached a new record. It is now close to 9 billion euros, an increase of 27% between April and June 2020. This means that most nations are governed under a market economy, capitalism, used to increase wealth state and based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. This also fits the big and the richest companies, which not only have enough money to be able to pay their employees a living wage but refuse to do so, as, according to The Guardian, 71% of carbon emissions are the responsibility of only 100 companies.

Mass production of goods is of economic interest, and this can be seen with the commercialization of essential goods such as the COVID-19 vaccine by several pharmaceutical companies.
To deepen this theme, a questionnaire on electricity consumption was carried out. The [41] subjects were instructed on the problems that the abuse of energy consumption generates the mass production of energy and electricity that leads to the exploitation of natural resources [pollutants] and, consequently, to the deterioration of the environment. Five questions were asked. The first one concerned whether individuals would be willing to reduce their electricity consumption, only one individual answered no. When asked if they would be willing to give up luxury energy products: 51.2%, equivalent to 21 individuals, answered: “No”, and the remaining 48.8%, corresponding to 20 people answered, “Yes”. In the third question, the individuals who answered “no” in question 2 were asked about the reason, their answers vary: some argue that the reason is the comfort that these types of equipment bring, along with the fact that they are a “need” or “essential “. Of these responses, three stand out, the first that “I just wouldn’t give up the mobile phone because I might need it in emergencies”, the second “I’ve lived a long time without technology. It would be difficult to live like this again”, and the third that “I don’t mind reducing my energy consumption, but I would only give up my luxury equipment if It was going to make a big impact”. The fourth question asked whether, even if they weren’t responsible for this type of decision, they would be willing to change their energy supplier to a more sustainable one, 78.1% (32 people) answered “yes”, and 21.9% (9 people) answered “no”. Question five tried to understand the reason why 9 people answered “no” in the previous question: 3 chose the hypothesis “It’s complicated”, 5 the “Costs” hypothesis, and 1 “Distrust in renewable energy suppliers”.

It is a fact that scientific evolution, social and socioeconomic evolution are related, and that they have been extremely beneficial for the development of societies. However, the question remains: whether we have developed in such a way that it’s harmful to us, not only in terms of environmental pollution but also in terms of individual and collective morality. What makes a person with so much money that they are capable to end world hunger, with a lot of money left, not do it? Multimillion-dollar companies with employees who need a second job to survive. It can be argued that scientific, social, and socioeconomic evolution aren’t related to money, but then how do we explain that the richest countries are the ones with more access to science, the most developed? It may be necessary to revise our priorities because the path humanity is following will lead to the eventual extinction of all life on earth.

Sources:
https://www.publico.pt/2019/01/21/economia/noticia/ricos-50-pobres-1858751
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Cid, Francisco “O debate atual em torno da influência das ciências da natureza no mundo ocidental e suas implicações na formação de professors” Magazine Aprender