Evil in Science and Technology
Main Article Content
Abstract
The relationship between science and evil is polyhedral and complex. In addition to having evil as an object of study, we can understand technoscience as an attempt to overcome evil as a threat to survival. Science would respond to the need to understand evil and anticipate it, while technology would be the attempt to limit its consequences. According to some authors, mainly in technooptimistic contexts, technoscience will end up overcoming all material scarcity and with it also social evil. In addition, we can recognize values that underlie scientific development despite an appearance of neutrality that sometimes presents specific technologies as developments at the service of evil. Technoscience also appears at the origin of structures of sin that it is important to understand in order to overcome them. Better understanding the relationships between science and evil can help us build a humanizing techno-scientific program that brings us closer to our goals as a society.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Publications Service of the University of Extremadura (the publishing house) retains the economic rights (copyright) of the works published in the Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho. Universidad de Extremadura.. The reuse of the content is allowed under a license:
CC BY
Recognition
This license allows others to distribute, remix, tweak and build upon your work, even for commercial purposes, as long as you are acknowledged as the author of the original creation. This is the most helpful license offered. The maximum dissemination and use of the materials subject to the license are recommended.
For more information, see the following links:
References
Arthur, W. Brian. “Complexity and the Economy”. Science 284 (5411) (1999, Apr 2): 107-109.
Bar-Tal, Daniel. Prosocial Behavior: Theory and Research. Washinton and London: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1976.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Appli-cations. Braziller: New York, 1968.
Collins, Harry M. y Trevor Pinch. The Golem: What You Should Know about Sci-ence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Diamandis, Peter H. y Steven Kotler. Abundance: The Future is Better than You Think. New York: Free Press, 2014.
Dracup, Kathleen, Debra K. Moser, Mickey Eisenberg, Hendrika Meischke, Angelo A. Alonzo y Allan Braslow. “Causes of Delay in Seeking Treatment for Heart Attack Symptoms”. Social Science and Medicine 40(3) (1995): 379-392.
Eisenberg, Nancey y Paul A. Miller. “The Relation of Empathy to Prosocial and Re-lated Behaviors”. Psychological Bulletin 101(1) (1987): 91-119.
Encinas Guzmán, Maria del Rosario, “¿Problemas ambientales o problemas antropoló-gicos?”. Cauriensia 5 (2010): 155-183.
Epstein, David. Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. New York: Riverhead Books, 2019.
Francesco, Laudato si’. Milano: Edizioni Piemme, 2015.
Gendron, Bernard. Technology and the Human Condition. New York: St. Martins, 1977.
Han, Byung-chul. La sociedad del cansancio. Barcelona: Herder, 2012.
International Medical Students Federation. Ethnicity and Health (2018). https://ifmsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/IFMSA-policy-document-on-Ethnicity-and-Health-AM18.pdf
Lumbreras, Sara. Respuestas al transhumanismo. Cuerpo, autenticidad y sentido. Madrid, Digital Reasons, 2020.
Marcos, Alfredo. “La bioética ante las nuevas antropotecnias”. Bioethics UPdate 2(2) (2016): 102-114.
Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism”. En Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Miller, Melanie J., Yu Dong, Kate Pechenkina, Wenquan Fan y Siân E. Halcrow. “Raising Girls and Boys in Early China: Stable Isotope Data Reveal Sex Differ-ences in Weaning and Childhood Diets During the Eastern Zhou Era”. American Journal Physical Anthropology 172(4) (2020): 567-85.
Miller Paul A. y Nancy Eisenberg. “The Relation of Empathy to Aggressive and Ex-ternalizing/Antisocial Behaviour”. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3) (1988): 324-344.
Ortega y Gasset, José. La rebelión de las masas. (Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1956).
Padilla-Walker, Laura M. y Gustavo Carlo. The Study of Prosocial Behaviour. Proso-cial Development: A Multidimensional Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Pustovit, Svitlana V. Erin D. Williams. “Philosophical Aspects of Dual Use Technol-ogies”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1) (2010): 17-31.
Roland, Alex. War and Technology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2016.
Sánchez Meca, Diego. Historia de La filosofía antigua y medieval. Madrid: Dykinson, 2013.
Stein, Ruediger. Accumulation of Organic Carbon in Marine Sediments: Results from the Deep Sea Drilling Project/Ocean drilling program (DSDP/ODP). Springer-Verlag, 1991.
Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View. London: Pimlico, 1996.
Teugels, Lieve M., Aggadat Bereshit: Translated from the Hebrew with an Introduc-tion and Notes. Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill, 2001.
Van Creveld, Martin. Technology and War: From 2000 BC to the Present. New York: The Fortress Press, 1989.
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York: Oxford Universi-ty Press, 2010.
Weisse, Carol S., Paul C. Sorum, Kafi N. Sanders y Beth L. Syat. “Do Gender and Race Affect Decisions about Pain Management?”. Journal of General Internal Med-icine 16(4) (2001): 211-217.
Zachos, James, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas y Katharina Billups. “Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 ma to Present”. Science 292 (5517) (2001): 686-693.