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 [1, 2]. 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) [3]. This narrowly focused approach to the ethical questions in technology is important but perhaps is not enough. It appears to be not very successful, although the controversial case of genetically modified foods might be an exception. New technological developments continue apace and the ethical concerns are given scant thought. A core problem is that the forces working against ethical considerations are too great. It is certainly important to consider the ethical implications of quantum technologies, AI and so on but how effective that has been and can be is open to question if the context in which these technologies are introduced is ignored. One element is economics. Quantum technologies and AI, for example, are expected to have enormous economic benefits. Given past experiences, it seems very unlikely that where ethical concerns might inhibit economic gain, ethics will win.

Other factors too, make it difficult for ethical arguments against certain technological developments or uses to gain traction. One is the frequently used argument “if we don’t do it someone else will” and the “someone else” will probably be our competitors or worse, enemies. Therefore, we may as well do it and get the benefits regardless of ethical considerations [4]. Another factor, perhaps the most potent for some technologies, is international rivalry and the resultant arms race. Even if there are worries about some development, the argument will be that we need to keep ahead or at least abreast of our potential or perceived enemies. While these and possibly other arguments for overriding ethical concerns are important, here we will concentrate just on the role played by some of the core underlying values of the Western worldview, values related to economic benefit.

Before proceeding, it is useful to briefly consider an influential broader approach to ethical and social issues, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). According to René von Schomberg’s well-known definition, RRI is

a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society) [5]

This is a worthwhile approach that we strongly endorse but it does not avoid the larger problem that is our focus here. It still faces the challenge that ethical and social issues rarely outweigh economic and other considerations. Additionally, the notions of acceptability and societal desirability require more elaboration. Underlying conflicting values suggest that these are contestable notions. We will return to this shortly.

Given these forces that inhibit ethical considerations from being taken seriously enough, should we be looking more carefully at the underlying social values that drive the development and use of technologies? Perhaps we should be examining how these values relate to some big issues such as the purpose of technology and its role in helping humans to lead flourishing and satisfying lives? The values of course help determine what is counted as a good life or human flourishing. Here the ethics of technology merges with the philosophy of technology more generally. We will explore this further through a discussion of the notion of worldviews or paradigms and how societal values are an integral part of them. More specifically, we will contrast a typically Western worldview with a typical Indigenous one in which technology and common Western values play a less important role. Demonstrating such alternatives may help in understanding the importance of asking the big questions and this in turn may help reveal the importance of ethical issues in technology and how best to tackle them. We are technological creatures but also mammals and it is not clear that our technological optimism is always leading us in ways that allow human mammals to flourish. We may be moving far too quickly from our evolutionary roots. Hopefully, this comparison will encourage us to seriously question what our important values really are, what a good and flourishing life is for creatures like us and the role for technology in human well-being.

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 Western 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.

Based on these differences, a potential new paradigm is outlined followed by suggestions of how it might affect the ethics of technology. Finally, a couple of objections are briefly discussed.

Technology, Culture and Values

The role of values in technology has been much discussed in recent times, particularly with respect to values in the design of artefacts [6]. As important as this work is, it is not our prime concern here. Our interest is the role that cultural values play in our attitudes towards to technology. Culture, with its embedded values, and technology are closely intertwined. Karl Marx discussed this ([7], p. 92). but now we do not think in these terms so much, although Alan Drengson [8] and Arnold Pacey [9], at least, have emphasised it. In a Western capitalist culture, core values include progress, efficiency, productivity, profitability and consumerism. (Consumerism can be taken as a value because consuming manufactured products and services is seen as good for the economy and for personal satisfaction.)

A central issue here is the role that these values play in the development and uses of technologies and in attitudes towards artefacts that are the products of these technologies. In Western capitalist culture core values such as progress, particularly technological progress, are just assumed to be good. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein,

[o] ur civilization is characterized by the word “progress”. Progress is its form rather than making progress one of its features. Typically, it constructs. It is occupied with building an ever more complicated structure (quoted in [10], p, 265).

On Rupert Read’s interpretation of this statement, progress is an assumed part of our civilization:

It is regarded as sufficient justification for any technological or economic innovation, to say “That’s progress”. Or “You can’t stop progress”. There is no possibility (or at least, has not been until very recently) endemic to the main cultural traditions of the West in recent centuries of questioning whether these changes really are progress. ‘OF COURSE they are’ ([10], p. 283).

These values themselves are open to different interpretations. Efficiency, for example, is commonly described in instrumentalist and materialist terms. The most efficient way of accomplishing a task is the way that is the least expensive and quickest. George Teschner and Alessandro Tomasi write:

Modern Western technology has been criticized by thinkers like Heidegger and Ellul for placing the value of efficiency above the beautiful, the good, and the holy. The danger of which Heidegger and Ellul speak is the subordination of art, morality, and religion to technological forces, where all values become secondary to instrumental value ([11], p. 190).

They present an alternative view of efficiency from ancient Taoism where efficiency is

a fitting-in with non-instrumental values that is the path of last resistance necessary to effectively achieving any end ([11], p. 190).

The important point is that efficiency is not inherently a materialist value and neither are progress, productivity and profitability even though that is how they are commonly seen and used.

A Materialist Paradigm

We in capitalistic societies, both Western and non-Western, operate within a materialistic paradigm in which the values just mentioned play a large part in decisions about which technologies are developed and how they are used. The paradigm is capitalist, materialist, consumerist and technological. Technological artefacts improve efficiency, productivity and so on; therefore, they are developed and used. Commonly, these are everyday objects such as smart phones and cars.

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 [12]). 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 Ovide notes:

We are infatuated with options that seem great but that we cannot or will not use [13].

As we mentioned earlier, this technological optimism tends to stifle most concerns expressed about new technologies. For example, philosophers and others have been warning about the risks to privacy for decades however more powerful and intrusive technologies are constantly being developed. Likewise, many concerns about developments in artificial intelligence have been voiced at least since the 1970s [14] and arguably even earlier by Norbert Wiener [15] but that too has had little effect on developments in the field.

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. According to Langdon Winner, there is a “technological somnambulism” (1986, 10) and he sees technologies as “forms of life” ([16], p. 14). He writes:

In the twentieth century it is usually taken for granted that the only reliable sources for improving the human condition stem from new machines, techniques and chemicals. Even the recurring environmental and social ills have rarely dented this faith ([16], p. 5).

Returning to RRI for a moment, it was an attempt to challenge the prevailing view that “unreflexively assumes innovation as being inherently good, desirable and the engine of choice to foster economic growth, productivity and prosperity” [17]. We suggested earlier that conflicting values underlying acceptability and societal desirability posed a problem for this approach. The problem is that some of the values widely accepted in society are the same values that clash with ethical concerns. While many people are concerned about the effects of some innovations on human welfare, in general, the materialist paradigm prevails. The desirability of economic gain and the excitement of the new and the novel outweigh the concerns. Where a materialist and capitalist worldview dominates, RRI faces the same antagonistic forces as the narrower ethical approaches mentioned earlier.

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 [18]. In this sense, a paradigm is a kind of worldview; a structure within which we work without normally questioning the structure itself. This model fits well with the current view of technological development and acquisition of technological artefacts. 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 stars and 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 fit in with common sense, it did not work so well. Many adjustments were needed for it to fit 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.

The harms can be mitigated in many cases through appropriate laws and regulations but this tends to make life more complicated. We have a new device with which we can do all sorts of things but we need to learn, and remember, what we are allowed to do with it. Some problems resulting from technologies require technological solutions themselves which makes the technological scene more complicated. The Ptolemaic system could be made to work by complicating it with more epicycles. The analogy may not be exact but a case can be made that for our materialistic paradigm to work it must be forever made increasingly complicated with more laws, regulations and technologies.

Willard van Orman Quine’s maxim of minimum mutilation is relevant here ([19], p. 7). Quine says that if our observations do not fit our theories, we modify our views in a way that minimally upsets, or mutilates, our total set of beliefs. Similarly, Imre Lakatos talks of a hard core at the centre of scientific research programmes, which is surrounded by a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses ([20], p. 133). If that hard core is challenged by observations, the auxiliary hypotheses are changed first in order to save the central theories. The hard-core belief that the sun was at the centre was protected by auxiliary hypotheses of epicycles. Our most cherished beliefs and attitudes, or this hard core, are affected least, or mutilated least; they are protected by the auxiliary hypotheses. These continual modifications however lead to an increasingly complicated paradigm as we noted above.

Technological development and new technologies are considered good and beneficial to society. If these developments cause harms, we will, if we can, find some explanation that does not involve rejecting this technological optimism. Just like Kuhn in his explanation of defending scientific paradigms, we will most likely treat the harms as anomalies or as aberrations to be explained by “auxiliary hypotheses” and not as something inherent in the way technology dominates our way of life. We might use auxiliary hypotheses such as the following to explain away problems with the technology paradigm: the technology was not used properly; it was used by fools; the regulations were not adequate; in this case, it was poorly designed technology. We try to “minimally mutilate” or protect our core commitment to technology.

We in Western capitalism are not willing to seriously question our technological paradigm; we have a high degree of commitment to technological development and products and strongly believe in technological progress. This is similar to, Kuhn’s account of commitment to a scientific paradigm. This is not merely an intellectual commitment but something that is almost loved and worshipped (see his discussion of commitment to paradigms [18], e.g. pp. 25 and 100).

This suggests that we should seriously question our paradigm, something that is implied by Owen and colleagues as an aim of RRI:

[W] e stress a kind of innovation that privileges collaboration, empathy, humility and care (for others, our planet and for the future), normatively underpinned by goals such as the SDGs, as opposed to one that stresses competition, individualism and carelessness. Perhaps the world, shaken by the ravages of a global pandemic, will finally tire of the latter and embrace the former. Perhaps there will be a space for RRI if and when that choice is made [17].

Paradigm change can only occur when an alternative is available and a look at Indigenous societies can help our thinking on alternatives as well as on big issues. But perhaps paradigm change is unnecessary. Our technological optimism has created problems but it has also provided solutions to them and given us many other benefits as well. And many of the criticisms and warnings have been heeded. One example is farming where precision agriculture is reducing the amount of pesticides and herbicides that are used. Another is climate change. Clean and renewable energy production is forging ahead and more energy-efficient products are entering the market. Are ethicists being listened to after all? Perhaps not. The harms of a changing climate are becoming apparent and solutions urgent. These developments in clean energy and decreased use of pesticides, etc. are certainly good and needed but they are still technological solutions to the problems largely created by previous technology. We are still working within the technological, materialistic, paradigm and on the technological treadmill. These new technologies will almost certainly create further problems which will again be solved by technology. Precision agriculture and clean energy obviously have many benefits but the former creates need for more computing equipment which leads to an increase in e-waste [21, 22] while clean energy will necessitate more mining [23].

The question that we need to ask is: can we continue to patch up our paradigm or do we need a change? The answer to this will influence how we undertake the ethics of technology.

Our argument here is not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with technology. The concern is that because we unquestioningly operate within a materialist and technological paradigm we do not question technology enough. As a result, it is not clear that the technology that is developed and employed is always in the best interests of humans or the rest of the natural world. Comparing this Western, materialist, consumerist, technological paradigm with a radically different one can be fruitful for stimulating a different way of seeing the world and highlighting some of the important issues in the ethics of technology.

An Indigenous Paradigm

Some common themes in Indigenous thought in many places are the idea of Mother Earth, the connectedness of everything and spirituality [24,25,26]. To develop this further, we will focus on the Indigenous people of the Philippines (IPs) and their ways of viewing the world.

Like many other Indigenous peoples, IPs have lived a way of life that is guided by their spirituality and their deep respect for Mother Earth. This deep respect and reverence for the natural world guided their behaviours and actions towards each other and towards their environment. It has also encouraged them to resist the more Westernised way of life based on capitalism, materialism and individuality.

Importance of Land as their Abode and Mother

For Karl Gaspar, an anthropologist and Catholic missionary who spent almost all of his missionary work with the IPs, the “land on which their homes are built, where they can hunt and gather fruits, where they can cultivate swidden farms and fish and where their ancestors are buried lies deep within the psyche of the indigenous peoples” ([27], p.93). This land is sacred to them because it is like their pharmacy where they can look for medicinal plants, market where they can get their foods, church where they can worship the deities and stage where they can perform their cultural practices and traditions.

This land is “not only a physical reality occupied by living people but it is a sacred ground inhabited by ancestral and natural spirits” ([28], p. 57). In addition, the land is an abode where they live and it is also where the spirit world and that of the living coexist and interpenetrate with one another. Hence, they value the need to maintain peace and harmony with all the beings that dwell therein. Nonhuman beings such as plants and animals, that are present in their ancestral lands, are treated with respect and reverence.

According to one IP cultural worker “plants, rivers and trees are abodes of the spirits” and “messengers of the spirits” so “that is why we treated them with so much respect and reverence” (Tagakolu Cultural Worker, Interview December 26, 2021).

A few tribal elders also explained that for them anything that belongs to their ancestral lands is predestined to be there by Manama (God). The manner by which they treat these beings (plants, animals and nature) can either bring them good or harm. If they treat them with respect and love, good things will happen to them. Consequently, bad things will happen to them if they treat these beings badly. Hence the IPs have lived their life in harmony with the rest of creation who can be found in their ancestral lands. Their spiritual life is intertwined with their temporal or daily activities. There is no dichotomy between spiritual life and their temporal behaviours. As one tribal leader explained it:

For us, there are many gods and these gods have spirits who dwell in trees, mountains, rivers and anywhere as long as they are welcome. That is why it is very important for us to protect and preserve our trees, mountains and rivers because they are sacred (B’laan Tribal Leader, Interview December 28, 2021).

Many IPs believe that “land and natural resources belong to gods, spirits and ancestors and land use depends not only on the initiative of the occupants but on how well the occupants relate to gods, spirits and ancestors” ([28], p. 63). Since land is so important for the survival not only of their species but also of their cultural practices and traditions, many IPs still continue to protect the integrity of their land [29]. This is because modernity with its culture of consumerism and capitalism armed with technological sophistication has threatened the worldview of the IPs with regard to their land. From their perspective, our modern economic system and its technologies continue to engage war against Mother Earth. For Vandana Shiva, this war is rooted in an economy which fails to respect ecological and ethical limits [30].

Driven by the desire for increased economic growth, modern farming technologies aim to exploit everything from the Earth to satisfy the luxurious lifestyles of people in capitalist societies. Therefore, this capitalist mindset is not attractive to many IPs. Material wealth will not provide them with a good life and peace [27, 28].

It is important to note that for the IPs, the spirits had both male and female characteristics and they also have gods and goddesses. From this has arisen the notion of the “image of the Mother as the Divine Womb – a source of life and nurture”. This Divine Womb only seeks that which engenders and sustains life of all its parts and this Divine Mother is not the ruler of the world but she is “the world itself”, being the Great Goddess who is immanent in nature ([31], p. 10). Many IPs considered their land as their mother because she gives and nurtures life.Consequently, they loved their land as their mother.

In summary, seeing the Earth as mother is a core belief in the IPs worldview. Caring for the Earth and nonhuman life flows from this and from the belief that spirits inhabit nature.

Interconnectedness

Flowing from this concept of the Earth as mother is interconnectedness. IPs and Indigenous people in other parts of the world, as we noted earlier, have in common a belief in their interconnectedness with nature. Their way of life has them living intimately connected with nature and the living and even non-living elements within nature. IPs also live a communal life. Thus, what affects one affects the others and the entire community. The IPs are really practising interconnectedness with nature, which is why they are most comfortable living in the mountains or near the rivers and other places that are still rich in biodiversity because these are vital for their cultural survival. While some of them have been relocated by the government because they are affected by development projects, many of them if they were able, chose to move further away from the dominant Filipino civilisation so they can continue to live in harmony with “the living and even non-living elements within nature” and with the members of their family and tribe. According to Robin Wall Kimmerer this connectedness with at least the living part of the non-human world is expressed in the Potawatomi language of North America by the fact that the same words are used “to address the living world as we use for our family. For they are family” ([24], p. 55).

Belief in a Supreme Deity and the Spirit World

According to Gaspar [27, p. 85], there was a prevailing belief amongst the early Indigenous peoples that their Supreme Being was elevated, transcendent and somewhat removed in their daily affairs. They also believed, however, that different forms of rituals where the people gather and pray together for health, protection, peace and prosperity invoke not only this Supreme Deity but also divine spirits who will come, visit and grant them what they asked for. Thus, while they believe in the existence of a Supreme Deity, they also believe that there are other intermediate divinities who would come to aid them in times of need. This belief is very much alive and practised by a college professor in one of the colleges in Southern Mindanao. When asked why she is very generous to people in need and always thinks of the common good, and is not afraid to go to far-flung communities to bring goods during calamities and disasters, she says:

I have by Abyan (guardian spirit) who protects me from danger and who guides the course of my daily activities (Bagobo College Professor Interview, November 23, 2021).

When asked further how did she know that she has an Abyan, she also mentioned that a

member of her family who is also very spiritual, has seen the Abyan. Her student also asked her one day if she has an Abyan, because in one of their night classes, that student saw that Abyan. I know it because I also have one, according to the student, and this Abyan is the one guiding me what to do during difficult moments.

As Raul Pertierra tells us, there is a mutual interaction between the spirit world and the material world even as they remain distinct from each other because,

the spirits have favourite dwelling places and peculiar personalities and they respond to the behaviours of humans toward them. A dead person’s spirit soul eventually becomes a spirit and joins the rest of the spirit world. Reciprocity and propriety are the moral attitudes expedited in people’s relations with their fellow humans and their relations with the spirits, ideal relation is one of kinship ([32], p. 41).

This interaction can extend to artefacts. In many cases, the old IPs, that is, the elders and those who are still practising their culture and tradition, consider even artefacts as living beings because they have spirits of the living. However, in some cases especially amongst the young IPs, this belief has slowly disappeared.

Their deep trust and reliance on their gods and spirit have also been influential in the way the IPs look at prosperity, health and well-being. For the IPs who are living a simple, decent and communal life, their conception of a good life is not dependent on their material possessions. For most of the IPs, living in harmony with the natural world as well as with their kin provide them good health, prosperity and well-being. Thus, they strongly value reciprocity and mutuality in their social interaction. In times of bountiful harvests and catch during hunting seasons, they distribute the fruits, vegetables and meat to their neighbours. The IPs practice a culture which ensures that everyone is provided for and taken care of during times of crisis.

With this picture of an Indigenous worldview or paradigm, we can now begin to compare some of its major elements with a typical Western view (see also [33] on IP worldviews).

Some Basic Differences between the Paradigms

In summary, the main points of interest here are the Earth as mother, relationships and interconnectedness with each other and with the natural world, and spirituality together with lack of materialism. These points, while discussed not explicitly in any detail in the section on materialist paradigms, help to show why the values mentioned there have so much force.

The Earth and the Natural World

Western views have been strongly influenced by, if not based on, Christianity and this is certainly true regarding how we see the Earth and the natural world in general. In the Old Testament, two different positions are stated, one domination and the other stewardship [34].According to Genesis 1:26

God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Here humans are given licence to dominate the non-human world. However, a stewardship view is given in the following passage:

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to tend it and to keep it (Genesis 2:15)

The same is true for Leviticus 25:23–24:

The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout this country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

The stewardship view has similarities with the Indigenous view of caring for the Earth and nature. Institutionalised Christianity however seems to have emphasised domination and has thus placed few inhibitors on developing and using technologies for destroying or badly damaging the natural environment in ways from which it cannot recover. This is radically different from the IP view of Mother Earth as we have seen.

Another aspect of the different perspectives is highlighted in God’s curse when ejecting Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden:

Cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee [ … ]. In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread til thou return unto the ground [ … ] (Genesis 3: 17–19).

This is an image of humans fighting the natural world rather than living in harmony with it and caring for it, which is the IP way.

Relationships and Connectivity

The Western worldview emphasises the importance of the individual rather than community and relationships between individuals (particularly in the English-speaking part of the West). For IPs, community is more to the fore. Furthermore, while it might be conceded in the Western worldview that we humans are mammals and in that sense part of the natural world, we are made in God’s image and therefore qualitatively different from other living creatures and particularly from the non-living world. Our kin are limited to other humans. Certainly, some people have close relationships with their pets and even with non-domestic animals, but that is not really built into our worldview. The IPs might not see non-humans as kin either but they see them as having spirits and so not as different from us. They all need to be respected. The connectivity both between humans and between humans and non-humans is stronger.

Spirituality

Spirituality is part of both the Western and the IP worldviews, even if becoming less important in the former. God, in the Western view, created the world but is separate from it. In the Old Testament, God plays a more active part in world affairs, but in the New Testament, the emphasis is rather on the “next” world. At least that is how it is largely portrayed in institutionalised Christianity. God is the supreme spirit but not necessarily the only one.

Humans might also have spirits which after death leave the body and go to heaven or hell (or perhaps elsewhere). For IPs, as we saw, there is a supreme spirit but also many others, residing not only in people but also in other creatures, trees, rocks and even artefacts. The division therefore between the spiritual and the material worlds is not as sharp as in the Western view.

What Would a Modified Paradigm Look like?

Given what appear to be radical and irreconcilable differences between the current Western materialistic, individualistic and technological paradigm and the Indigenous worldview considered, it seems unlikely that the typical Western person could be persuaded to see the world in an Indigenous way. What we are suggesting is not as radical as that. Consideration of Indigenous ways, we will try to show, can help us modify our Western paradigm in ways that will encourage technologies that are more conducive to human well-being.

As mentioned earlier, for our purposes here, the three core elements of the Filipino Indigenous worldviews outlined are the Earth as mother, the interconnectedness of everything including us, and the importance of the spiritual. These three elements are clearly closely related but separating them makes discussion easier.

The first of these is Mother Earth. The Earth cares for us in the sense that she supplies all of our needs, just as a good mother cares for her children. Good children are grateful to their mother and in return care for her. Likewise, because the Earth cares for us we should be grateful and in turn care for her. We no longer see her as something to be exploited for our wants, however excessive they may be, but rather as someone from whom we take only what we need. We realise our dependence on the Earth therefore we must care for it

For this idea to be useful, it does not need to be taken literally. It is powerful as a metaphor. There are similarities between a good mother and the Earth or nature. Even in this highly technological age, it provides all the resources needed for our survival. Ultimately, regardless of how highly refined some product is, what is refined comes from the Earth. The relationship between humanity and the Earth is not so different from that between a baby and its mother. A core part of our revised paradigm then is seeing the Earth as our metaphorical mother which supplies all our needs

Mother Earth does not only look after us, she provides for all in the same kind of way that she provides for us. We all have the same mother so we are all related; we are all kin. Again, this is a strong metaphor which encourages us to think carefully about our treatment of non-human nature. Most of us do have special bonds to family so if the notion of family is extended to the natural world, we would look at it as not just something to be exploited for our own benefit.We would be careful in how we treat it and not harm it unnecessarily.

The third element of importance here in the Indigenous worldview is the spiritual. While many who live and work within the typical Western paradigm would claim a strong spiritual element in their lives, in general, it is not enough to counteract the prevalent materialism. At least part of the reason for this is that the Christian interpretation of the spiritual is that it is separate from the material. Even if this is not essential to Christianity, in general, the spiritual world is one thing and the material another. This Christianity is not incompatible with accumulating goods and exploiting the Earth. Indigenous spirituality is much more closely linked to the material. The Earth as mother is not to be harmed and trees, animals, rocks and so on have spirits or are the home of spirits.

Even if we are reluctant to accept that natural objects have spirits, this way of looking at the spiritual is also a powerful metaphor. It reminds us that the material is not all that there is and is probably not the most important. There is more to life than material things, for example, love, friendship and beauty. Perhaps these are not what is normally meant by the spiritual but they do have a non-material element even if closely related to the material. Even things like artefacts can have this quasi-spiritual aspect. We talk of things having sentimental value. A family heirloom with little monetary value can be highly prized because of its history.

Likewise, gifts generally, especially from a friend or from someone we love, are more valued than things bought. Some things seem to define our identity and things that we make or have contributed to the making of, often have special value because we put part of ourselves into them.

In summary, these three elements taken from the earlier discussions of Indigenous thought can provide an important basis for a contemporary Western worldview even if not interpreted literally. They may be stronger if they were but even metaphorically they have considerable force. Additionally, they are not completely foreign to our current way of thinking. They emphasise aspects that are often hidden or neglected because of our focus on materialism and values like progress, profitability, efficiency and individualism. Pope Francis offers a similar view:

Everything is related, and we human beings are united as brothers and sisters on a wonderful pilgrimage, woven together by the love God has for each of his creatures and which also unites us in fond affection with brother sun, sister moon, brother river and mother earth [35].

Indigenous ways of looking at the world involve much more than we have discussed here of course, but our main interest here is what we can learn from Indigenous worldviews that can help us develop and use technologies in ways that are more beneficial.

What Now?

We began this paper by arguing that the ethics of technology had less traction than it should have because many of the core values of our worldview or paradigm worked strongly against many of the ethical concerns. Would the situation be any better in the new paradigm? Ethical issues should encounter less resistance than they do currently. Profitability would not be so important and therefore efficiency and productivity, the main role of which is to increase profits, would play a lesser role in the development and use of technologies. More concern would be shown for the health of the environment and therefore less desire for new and “throw-away” products which in many cases do not have any significant, or even noticeable, positive impact on our lives. Less emphasis would be placed on values such as efficiency, productivity, individualism, materialism and consumerism and more on care for the Earth, on kinship and relationships and on spirituality. This should make a difference but we do not have this paradigm, so what should be done?

In 2017, there was a call for a “terrestrial turn” in the philosophy of technology. This points in a direction that would broaden the way that we approach the ethics of technology. The argument there was that

[w] e need to start thinking about the implications of the new, anthropocenic Earth which we are from now on inhabiting for the philosophy of technology ([36], p. 117).

Bruno Latour recently made a similar point in the context of the current pandemic. “To survive under these new conditions” he wrote, “we have to undergo a sort of metamorphosis” because “it is very difficult for most people used to the industrialised way of life, with its dream of infinite space and its insistence on emancipation and relentless growth and development” to change ([37], n.p.). He concludes that it “appears that all the resources of science, humanities and the arts will have to be mobilised once again to shift attention to our shared terrestrial condition”. This includes the resources of the ethics of technology. These calls for a more “terrestrial” focus are a move towards the Indigenous perspective where Mother Earth is central.

Thinking more about the Earth leads to more of a focus on the kinds of creatures we are, our relationships with other humans and the non-humans, both living and non-living, which collectively comprise the Earth. We are mammals, and like our mammalian cousins, require a healthy natural environment if we are to flourish. We are social mammals who prefer to live in communities, so our social environment is important and we are intimately connected to the rest of the world. We are also spiritual beings, at least in the weak sense outlined earlier, where we recognise the importance of some non-material values, for example, love, friendship and beauty. And importantly, we are technological mammals who need technology to survive and, as Ortega y Gasset said, to live well [38]. All of these points need to be considered in the ethics of technology even in the examination of specific issues and not just in more general discussions in the philosophy of technology.

More emphasis must be placed on questioning the current underlying values of progress, profitability, efficiency, materialism and so on as well as on the alternatives values while examining the technological issues. Emphasis must be placed on care, both for the Earth and for each other and also on non-material or spiritual aspects both of ourselves and non-human things, including artefacts. More awareness of current underlying values and a recognition of an alternative can change the focus of ethics of technology.

What might this look like? Consider monitoring and surveillance technology. This topic has received a great deal of attention over the last couple of decades, especially with respect to privacy and data protection. These are undoubtedly important and deserve the attention that they have received but given that we are social creatures, the effect of the use of these technologies on communal issues like trust, good behaviour and relationships is also of vital concern. It can plausibly be argued that the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies discourages trusting relationships and hinders the development of virtues [39]. These technologies are used in a wide variety of contexts. In the workplace, they can monitor employees’ behaviour and work patterns and so are useful for safety control and productivity, in businesses for consumer buying behaviour and more generally in society for crime prevention and citizen safety. If profit, productivity and efficiency are not seen as such important underlying values, then much of the monitoring and surveillance is harder to justify. More focus on questioning these values should be part of ethical discussions about monitoring and surveillance. Is profitability more conducive to human well-being than good relationships? Should material values override non-material (or spiritual) values? If those underlying values such as efficiency, profit and so on are questioned directly, then their defenders will need to engage in discussions of why they should override other ethical issues. Currently, it is too easy to assume that materialistic values are more important than others. The focus of ethical argument would change with more emphasis on the underlying values themselves.

In addition to the ethical concerns of monitoring and surveillance just raised, is the issue mentioned earlier that these technologies require natural resources and these in turn necessitate mining with all its environmental problems [21]. Furthermore, when the devices need replacing, their disposal can cause additional problems for the environment [22] This is impacted by software development as well. Frequently, devices which are working well need to be replaced simply because they are not compatible with new software. These technologies also require energy in their manufacture and operation, thereby increasing energy demand.

This need may be supplied by clean energy sources but these also require raw materials for their manufacture and at some point must be replaced, causing a waste problem.

These concerns arising from the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies require consideration in the ethics of technology as well as in environmental ethics. They are part of the “terrestrial turn” in the field. Keeping the idea of Mother Earth in mind keeps attention on the importance of caring, not only for other humans but also caring for the Earth.

Conclusion

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.