In the excitement over the unfolding of his scientific and technical powers, modern man has built a system of production that ravages nature and a type of society that mutilates man. Such is the philosophy of exaggerated materialism, which we here challenge as inadequate for the purpose of human development. This philosophy promotes a narrow vision of reality, and emphasises the accumulation of goods and the manipulation of techniques, to the neglect of the development of persons. The destructive forces of the modern world cannot be brought under control simply by mobilizing more resources of wealth, education, and research – to fight pollution and chemical hazards, preserve wild life, to discover new sources of energy, and to arrive at more effective agreements on peaceful co-existence.  Wealth, education, research, and many other things are needed for any civilization though, a revision of the ends which these means are meant to serve must be in accord with the logic of appropriate technology.  This implies, above all else, the development of a life-style, which accords to material things their proper, legitimate place, which is secondary and not primary.  The paper views human development as the progressive humanization of society; a movement away from the materialistic, and towards the humanistic and argues in particular that, the logic of development expressed through the creative application of knowledge of other cultures which is technology transfer should be shifted in favour of the design and application of technical knowledge for the benefit of the immediate community, which is appropriate technology.

 Introduction

The destructive forces unleashed by it (the logic of production – exaggerated materialism) cannot be brought under control, unless the logic of production’ itself if brought under control – so that destructive forces cease to be unleashed.  It is of little use trying to suppress terrorism if the production of deadly devices continues to be deemed a legitimate employment of man’s creative powers.  Nor can the fight against pollution be successful if the patterns of production and consumption continue to be of a scale, a complexity, and a degree of violence which, as is becoming more and more apparent, do not fit into the laws of the universe, to which man is just as much subject as the rest of creation.  Equally, the chance of mitigating the rate of resource depletion or of bringing harmony into the relationships between those in possession of wealth and power and those without is non-existent as long as there is no idea anywhere of enough being good and more-than-enough being evil (Schumacher, 1979:291).

            This argued point in question in the above quip is that, pollution must be brought under control and population of mankind and his consumption of resources must be steered towards a permanent and sustainable equilibrium – this can be made possible through a conscious effort of intersecting the material and immaterial, the visible and invisible.  Thus the tendency of the modern man to see and become conscious of only the visible and to forget the invisible things that are making the visible possible and keeping them going does not, and cannot amount to development.  The philosophy of exaggerated materialism promoted and protected by scientific technology produces a “process of mutual poisoning” whereby successful industrial development in the cities destroys the economic structure of the hinterland, and the hinterland takes its revenge by mass migration into the cities, poisoning them and making them utterly unmanageable.  As already stated above, our crudely materialistic philosophy that makes us liable to see only the material opportunities and to overlook the immaterial factors is a misguided effort in human development.

            Human development is not primarily a problem for economists, least of all for economists whose expertise is founded on a crudely materialist philosophy. Human development requires a new philosophy which takes cognisance of the yearnings and aspirations of the entire human population; it must be humanistic, which takes poverty and other inhuman conditions as diseases which must be permanently exterminated from the human system.  From a severely practical point of view, this new thinking no longer support the saying that “what is good for the rich must be good for the poor”, but support a development policy that “care for all people” because they are the primary and ultimate source of wealth.

            The conclusion here is that, man’s current pursuit of profit and progress, which promotes giant organizations and increased specialization is not and cannot be called development (at least in human terms).  In fact, it has rather resulted in gross economic inefficiency, environmental pollution and inhuman working conditions.  Thus, man is pulling the earth and himself out of equilibrium by applying only one test to everything he does: money, profits and therefore giant operations.  We have got to ask instead, “what about the cost in human terms, in happiness, health, beauty and conservation of the planet?” which indices are architectonics of human development.

            It is argued on this score that all success which end promote the essential needs of man are likely to be illusory unless there is also a healthy growth or at least a healthy condition of stability – among the very great number of people today whose life is characterised not only by dire poverty but also by hopelessness.  Such healthy growth or condition of stability it is said, could come about through technology transfer, while others say it could be made possible through appropriate technology. Our work appraises these positions and argues the conclusion that African communal expression of the logic of solidarity and subsidiarity promotes the totality of the human person.

  Technology Transfer

            In her conclusion in the article “the Africanness of a philosophy, Professor S. B. Oluwole (1992:122) says, “may be the invaluable lesson to be learned from the great debate on the existence of African philosophy is that different human cultures can contribute to progress and human civilization.”  The underlying mentality of this thinking is that borrowing from other cultures is an essential component of progress and development; technical, material or human.  It thus means that the less developed (underdeveloped) and or developing nations are more likely to borrow wisely the creative knowledge of other cultures in the service of their essential desires.  The Asian Tigers (Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia etc) have proudly demonstrated how to borrow wisely from other cultures (i.e. Europe and America).  The Japanese, for instance, do not only encourage foreign teachers from Europe and America, they also have exposure to other cultures, as an essential element of their educational policies.

            In Africa, the Egyptian contribution to the march of civilization is another of such examples of cultural symbiosis that has engendered progress and human development.  One historian once wrote on this score that:

Long before her decline set in, Egypt had laid the foundation of a culture on which that of the western world was afterward built.  References have already been made to her skill in Agriculture, architecture, writing, and painting.  She had developed the use of metals, and had devised a method of practical mensuration.  Spinning and weaving, and other industries had been introduced.  By means of her sea-going ships she had established commerce with the outer world.  And as early as 2500 BC, she had devised a Calendar, which, with the changes afterwards made in it by the Romans, is practically the same as that now in use (Ifechukwu 1991:33-34).

            Europe itself obtained its arithmetic symbols from the Arabic figures 1, 2, 3… as opposed to Roman figures i, ii, iii.  Even European languages borrowed from one another. Hence we often find in the English language, words with either French, Latin or German origin.  Even in music, one can find traces of African music in European and American music.

            In all of these, the instrument in use is what we call creative imitation, which principle, in respect of technology argues that we do not need to re-invent the wheel – that instead of trying to start from the scratch the development of new technology, we can adapt the already developed technologies from other cultures to our own environment.  The advantage of this strategy is that, it could save us a lot of funds which could be devoted to research and development.  It is argued here that such an attitude in scientific technology is what comes to us a technology transfer, which adaption not only help in making the wheel suitable for our environment but also to use the technology of making the wheel to make other things we need.

            Thus argued, technology transfer is not a mere import of another culture entirely, but a capture of the applicable and the spirit of technological progress already caught by other cultures.  In this attempt, we look at how other peoples have applied techniques to the situation similar to ours and attempt such application.  We are thus challenged to avoid the mistakes, the wastes, and the destructions that accompanied their own (i.e. the technologies of those from whom we seek to adopt or transfer).

            The argued thesis, here, is that global problems today call for solutions that draw on the resources of different cultures.  This then makes the imitation of other cultures imperative.  As one writer puts it “if we want progress in all regions of human endeavour, we must learn that civilization consists in terms of native contributions and outside borrowings.”  It remains to be seen, however, how such outside borrowings has or can contribute to human development.

            Put into proper perspective, technology transfer is examined by the conventional school in terms of the product cycle theory of international trade in which technology – owing enterprises in the advanced countries exploit their monopoly advantages in the third world market.  The informing philosophy here is that, it is cheaper for the recipient countries to import technology than produce it locally.  Attempting a further critique, the critical school examines technology transfer in terms of an unequal relationship between the developing and developed capitalist economies. It regards the situation as the inevitable outcome of capitalized development, and locates dependency within the centre-periphery concept which opines that part of the third world is part of the centre and, therefore, the actions of the former are taken in the light of the centre. Thus the dependent relationship determines both what happens and what is possible between two sets of unequal countries. By prognosis, this implies, in practical term that technology transfer is a problematic issue in the developing economies like that of Nigeria.

            Such, perhaps, is the thinking which informs the conclusion of Uduigwomen (1996:161) in his description of technology transfer as “the buying or importation of foreign technology by a particular country or state without due regard to the question of whether or not it suits the environment of the buying country or state.”  This, in itself, creates problems to the recipient country, for it means the introduction of a foreign culture into the recipient culture hence the two are bound to react negatively which, in our view dehumanises and depersonalises the individual and his society.  Perhaps, the elucidating words of Professor Kwame Gyekye says it all that, the alien cultural product is not simply “transferred” to the recipients.  Rather the significance of the product, they would seek it, acquire it, and appropriate it – that is, make it their own.  This means that they would participate actively and purposefully in the acquisition of the product.  But, as he argued further:

To the extent (1) that what is called technology transfer is, in its essentials, an aspect of the phenomenon of cultural borrowing, and (2) that the people to whom some technology is transferred are, thus expected to understand and take possession of it through active and purposeful participation in its acquisition, “transfer of technology” is, in my view, a misnomer.  For what is transferred may not be acquired, appropriated or assimilated (Gyekye, 1997:40).

            It is to be noted, therefore, that technology transfer cannot engender human development; indeed it does not have the intrinsic quality to trigger any meaningful form of development due to the absence of any necessary and sufficient conditions of assimilating, digesting and translating the techniques of foreign origin by the recipients countries.  Thus technology is not transferred.  What is transferred, on the contrary, is the colossal economic resources of the developing countries to the already developed ones.  It must, thus, be noted that any form of technology that does not originate from within the socio-cultural environment of a people can hardly be useful in dealing with their peculiar problems.  This conclusion may perhaps be an exaggeration, but the fact is that, a technology, borrowed or originated from within a cultural environment must be made to interact in a meaningful sense with the local environment.  It must serve the immediate needs of the local population, it must be appropriate in the sense of being amenable to management by their users, and in harmony with the environment, and which are conserving of natural resources.

            To the extent that technological transfer does not satisfy these essential criteria, it is an unwanted foreign tissue in the human body system.  Ali Mazrui’s biological metaphor of technological transplant does not qualify for our acceptance either.  In his words, “there has been a considerable amount of technology transfer to the third world in the last thirty years – but very little technology transplant.  Especially in Africa, very little of what has been transferred has in fact been successfully transplanted” (1985:281-282) we may add here that, if by “successfully transplanted” the revered Professor of African studies mean to say that Africa has appropriated and acquired or can appropriate and acquire western technology and thus improve her lot, we roundly reject the assertion.  Rather, western scientific technology with its static metaphysics has helped in the destruction of the entire African continent – socially, economically etc, and to that extent, destroyed the human person.  Perhaps, the revealing reply of Kwame Gyekye helps to collapse Mazrui’s poor analogy.  Says he:

To the extent (1) that this biological or medical metaphor clearly involves passivity on the part of the recipient (i.e. the patient), who, thus has no choice in actively deciding on the ‘quality’ of the foreign body tissue to be sewn unto his body, and (2) that there is no knowing whether the physical constitution of the recipient will accept or reject the new body tissue, the biological perception of acquiring the technological products of other cultures is very misleading… besides the body on which the foreign body tissue is to be transplanted is in a diseased condition which make it impossible for it to react in a wholly positive manner to its new “addition” and to take advantage of it (p. 40).

            We may add here that, even if we assume, analogically, that the society that is badly in need of the technological products of other cultures is technologically or epistemically ‘diseased’, the fact would still remain that, in the case of the human society, the members of the society would, guided by their needs, be in a position not only to decide on which technological products of foreign origin they would want to acquire, but also to participate actively and positively in the appropriation of those products.

            Clearly, neither “technology transfer” nor Mazrui’s “technological transplant” is a fruitful way of perceiving, and pursuing the acquisition of technology from other cultures for the purpose of human development.  Indeed such forms of cultural borrowings destroy, dehumanise and under-develop cultures.  What we do need in our chart to human development is scientific consciousness and not scientific knowledge.  Scientific consciousness entails knowledge about science while scientific knowledge denotes knowledge of science.  Andrew Efemini explains further:

Anyone with scientific consciousness understands the place of science in man’s struggle to improve his living condition on earth.  He does not see science as something that should be pursued for its own sake but as something tat should be pursued for man’s benefit… Once our educational system is able to produce people who have scientific and technological consciousness, it would have produced those who would be committed to the pursuit of scientific and technological development because they would be fully aware of the consequences of their refusal to do so (Efemini, 1982:18).

            It must be said without fear of contradiction that, technology transfer is synonymous with cultural importation, which problems are myriad.  Science and technology must better be acquired than bought. Acquisition, understood here, is also called copy engineering or creative imitation in which the recipient culture acquires the technology from other cultures by either copying or “stealing” it from industrialized countries and then adapting or modifying it to suit our (the recipient) environment or by developing one’s own technology in response to the needs identified in the environment. China and Japan are classical examples in this regard.

            Undoubtedly, technology can transform human society in numerous ways.  For this reason, the post-colonial, developing countries will have to consider technology as an instrument in the realization of basic human needs than as an end – as merely a way of demonstrating human power or ingenuity.  As already acknowledged in our previous chapters, technology has meaning because of man; because of the service it renders to man.  It thus becomes a fundamental mistake to conceive its meaning independent of man and his life.  Thus, technology must be concerned fundamentally, and essentially with such human needs as food, shelter, water, health, clothing etc. The pursuit and satisfaction of these basic needs should guide the choice and appropriation of technology.

            This brings us to the issue of the type of technology that is appropriate for human development. Perhaps, such zeal may have informed a one-time minister of science and technology to declare powerfully that, “we must reach out to the world’s wealth of knowledge and practice. We must pursue the solution of our problems of industrial manufacture and economic progress with dedication, conviction and patriotism” (Newswatch, February 12, 1990:14).

  Appropriate Technology

…what ought to be chosen is the technology that will be applied to industry, food and agriculture, water, health, housing, road and transportation and other relevant activities that make ordinary life bearable… military and space exploration technologies for instance, may not be needed by the postcolonial state – certainly not in the early decades of its postcolonial existence (Gyekye p. 41).

            The appropriation and development of technology must necessarily take into account the local circumstances and objectives before the adaptability of any technological product.  This is because technology has the capacity to transform human society, either positively or negatively, involving changes not only in our ways and patterns of living, but also in our values.  It means then that, human beings will have to decide whether the (new) values spewed out by technology are the kinds of values we need and would want to cherish.  Rightly argued, Gyekye asserts that: “Technology emerges in, and is fashioned by, a culture; thus right from the outset, technology is driven or directed by human purposes, values, and goals” (Ibid).

            This historical relation between technology and values thus maintained, means that, what will be produced for us by technology will (have to) be consonant with those purposes, values and goals.  Thus, an argument in the promotion and protection of human development is necessarily an argument in support of the development of a brand of technology that is humanistic in form and outlook; a technology with a human face – appropriate technology.

            Variously referred as “alternative technology”, “intermediate technology” or “small-scale technology”, appropriate technology is defined by a committee of the United States House of Representatives as “those technologies which are decentralized, which require low capital investment, which are amenable to management by their users, which are in harmony with the environment and which are conserving of natural resources” (Topic; Issue 131:50).

            The inherent understanding here is that, technology is made by humanity for humanity, and not humanity for technology.  This means that, human beings and their welfare should be the centre of the focus of the technological enterprise.  It thus means also that, technology must be driven to satisfy such needs that are appropriate to a given culture, that is, a given industrial activity should be appropriate to the conditions of a given people, (developing district), which itself dictates a technology to be employed.

            The appropriate technology is founded on a dynamic metaphysic.  This metaphysic is progressive as much as humanistic, and so draws its strength from the convergence of several trends herein considered:

(i)                 The discovery that resources are not unlimited and or unrenewable, i.e. oil and gas and solid minerals.

(ii)               That the development of cost-effective high technology often put people out of work.

(iii)             That the exportation of up-to-the-minute technology to developing nations by the developed nations creates more problems than the solutions it seeks to bring, for the indigenous cultures (i.e. recipient) could not absorb it effectively.

(iv)             That the side effects of technological innovations have heightened, as health hazards developed as by-products of such seemingly beneficial innovations as pesticides and oral contraceptives.

(v)               That scientific advances were eroding the ecology.

(vi)             That scientific and technical knowledge created new and dangerous cultures as humanity converted the instruments of scientific technology to more dangerous uses, which were never ever part of the scientist innovation.

            This thinking is informed by a humanistic philosophy, which according to Schumacher, “makes the kind of common sense that could help the survival of life on earth become at least a decent possibility”.  Thus, appropriate technology is the appropriate means of re-directing the destructive ugliness, gigantism, normlessness, infantilization, standardisation, conformity and non-identity which modern scientific technology produces.  It is the appropriate means of re-humanizing the factory workers (for instance), who have been robbed of their creativity, affectivity, spontaneity and responsibility, and made to be mere Robopaths.

            Appropriate technology thus argues that, technology, and humanism are two interactive factors, which are not, and should not be arithmetical concepts, but should rather co-operate and co-exist with the concern for the interest and welfare of the people in the technological society to produce a total quality individual (TQI).

            Schumacher had similarly expressed his scepticism of the positive impact of scientific technology.  Says he:

If we ask where the tempestuous developments of world industry during the last quarter of a century have taken us, the answer is somewhat discouraging.  Everywhere the problems seem to be growing faster than the solutions.  This seems to apply to the rich countries just as much as to the poor.  There is nothing in the experience of the last 25 (now 33) years to suggest that modern technology, as we know it, can really help us to alleviate world poverty, not to mention the problem of unemployment, which already reaches levels like 30 per cent in many so called developing countries… the apparent yet illusory success of the last 25(now 33) years cannot be repeated… so we had better face the question of technology – what does it do and what should it do?  Can we develop a technology, which really helps us to solve our problems – a technology with a human face? (Schumacher, 1979:144).

            For the African, the question of what western technology does is straight forwardly answered that (1) western technology destroys, dehumanises and kills, while the question of what it should do attracts the response  (2) technology (of any form) should not lose the humanist essence of African culture.  The reason is that, for the African, the value of concern for human well-being is a fundamental, intrinsic and self justifying value which should be cordoned off against any technological subversion of it.  Kenneth Kaunda very forcefully expresses his concern in this connection thus:

I am deeply concerned that this high valuation of man and respect for human dignity which is a legacy of our (African) tradition should not be lost in the new Africa.  However “modern” and “advanced” in a western sense the new nations of Africa may become, we are fiercely determined that this humanism will not be obscured.  African society has always been man-centred.  We intend that it will remain so. (Kaunda, 1966:28)

            This prophetic desire can only come true if, and only if, the adapted technology is humanistically driven.  A humanistically driven technology is that brand of technology which directing compass is informed by the humanist essence of a given culture.  It acknowledges the prime place of man which understanding informs the choice of a technology that suits the said human environment.  Unemployment and its resultant poor quality of life demands an appropriate technology that offers mass employment and re-assures food on every body’s table.  The charismatic visionary, E. F. Schumacher is most obviously a genius in advancing a philosophy, which serves this need.  In his Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, (1979) Schumacher dramatised what he calls “Buddhist economics”, as a classical example of humanizing humanity through an appropriate means.  He explains better

The very start of Buddhist economic planning would be a planning for full employment, and the primary purpose of this would in fact be employment for everyone who needs an “outside” job: it would not be the maximization of employment nor the maximization of production (Schumacher, 1979:54-55).

            We may refer to this humble attempt as “technological-reclamation” of the messy activities of scientific technology, which has left modern man too busy doing nothing and or working tirelessly to destroy himself and the entire ecosystem.  Appropriate technology here, focuses on the identification of human needs, and proceeds in a small but beautiful way to attack the problem, “life and direct”, and solves the problem without any damage to the human person or the environment – it emphasises the philosophy that technology is appropriate to the environment, it conserves energy and, or resources.

            Very well aware of the convergence of the trends earlier stated above, humanity is reminded that a price has to be paid for anything worthwhile; to redirect technology so that it serves man instead of destroying him. Then, humanity is said to be on its way to full and meaningful development.  Schumacher argues the same point positively as, a possibility to give a new direction to technological development, which according to him is “a direction that shall lead it back to the real needs of man, and that also means: to the actual size of man.  Man is small, and therefore, small is beautiful.  To go for giantism is to go for self-destruction” (Ibid. p.155)

            Perhaps, the example described to us by Robert Cahn of a community of Zen Buddhists could very well serve as an ideal form of appropriate technology, which promotes and protects human development.  They grow all their own food according to organic principles.  Food and energy production, waste disposal, water usage and construction are being developed consistent with both Zen principles and the notions of appropriate technology.  For example, the community plans to use windmills as an electricity-producing technology.  One of the group’s leaders once commented,

Although we treasure leaving in the reality, of the present, we are in no hurry.  We build in terms not of a generation or two, but 500 years or more…the result is a highly productive, ecologically and environmentally ethical relationship to the land, resources and animal life. (Drew #131:52).

            Similarly, a widely cited demonstration project in architectural technology has been conducted at the University of Lagos wherein a one-storey building has been constructed with one hundred percent locally sourced raw materials.  Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that the entire building could be dislodged without any form of destruction to the building materials used, and which could be reused elsewhere for another building.

            In the field of agriculture, planned research and exploration of the vital relationships between soil, plant, animal, and man, have made it possible for present day farmers in many countries to successfully obtain excellent yields without resort to chemicals and without raising any doubts about long-term soil fertility and health.

            In the area of industrial technology, the ever-increasing campaign of appropriate technology is yielding positive dividends.  Researches in this area with futuristic philosophy shows that, technology with human face is fast becoming a household activity; that, it is possible, that, it is viable, and that, it reintegrates the human being, with his skilful hands and creative brains, into the productive process. It serves production by, and for the masses instead of mass production.

            Our discussion thus far reveals that the third world, but Africa in particular, cannot be salvaged and humanised by western technology. The inventors themselves (Europe and America) have become slaves of their hands and creative brains.  Its adaptation by the developing world has brought more poverty, and increased rather than diminished our problems in terms of mass unemployment, mass migration into cities, rural decay, and intolerable social tensions.  The human person has been left dehumanised and thus lives a life of meaninglessness and hopelessness.  What we need is rehumanization; reorientation of relationships between man and nature, which itself engender order and harmony.  We need a technology with a human face, which instead of making human hands and brains redundant, helps man to become far more productive than he has ever been before.  As Gandhi once said, the poor cannot be helped by mass production, only production by the masses (ibid p. 149). Perhaps a clear distinction of the two expressions could enlighten us and bring meaning to bear on our position.

(i)                 The system of mass production, based on sophisticated, highly capital-intensive, high-energy-input dependent and human labour-saving technology presupposes that you are already rich, for a great deal of capital investment is needed to establish one single workplace.

(ii)               The system of production by the masses mobilizes the priceless resources which are possessed by all human beings, their clever brains and skilful hands and support them with first class tools.

            Comparing and contrasting the two Schumacher validly writes:

The technology of mass production is inherently violent, ecologically damaging, self-defeating in terms of non-renewable resources and stultifying for the human person.  The technology of production by the masses, making use of the best of modern knowledge and experience, is conducive to decentralization, compatible with the laws of ecology, gentle in its use of scare resources, and designed to serve the human person instead of making him the servant of machines (Schumacher, 1979:149).

            To the extent that the technology of production by the masses is synonymous with appropriate technology, we acknowledge that the human person’s interest is best served here.  Appropriate technology is vastly superior to the primitive technology of the past, sophisticated, capital intensive, high-energy-input, dependent and human-labour saving technology.  Appropriate technology promotes best the humanist essence of African culture, hence the full development of the human person.  Unlike the modern technology which has deprived man of the kind of work that he enjoys most; creative, useful work with hands and brains, but which keeps him exceedingly busy working on things that are not necessary, appropriate technology is underpinned and guided by some basic moral values, and directed at the fulfilment of the material welfare balanced with the spiritual welfare of human beings.  Quoting Karl Marx, Schumacher argues this distinction between modern technology and appropriate technology as a case in favour of appropriate technology.  He writes: They want production to be limited to useful things, but they forget that the production of too many useful things result in too many useless people (Schumacher p. 147) especially when the processes of production are joyless and boring, which confirms our suspicion that modern technology, as it has developed, is developing, and promises further to develop, is showing an increasingly inhuman face, and that we might do well to take stock and reconsider our goals.

            Going by the spirit of African humanistic heritage, technology makes more meaning and gives hope to life if and only if it expresses its instrumental and intrinsic value.  As an instrument in the quest for human fulfilment; its use ought to be guided by other, perhaps intrinsic and ultimate human values, in order to realise its maximum relevance to humanity.  Kwame Gyekye strongly supports this position as he writes:

In considering technology’s aim of fulfilling the material needs of humans, the pursuit of the humanist and social ethic of the traditional African society can be of considerable relevance because of the impact of this ethic can have on the distributive patterns in respect of the economic goods that will result from the application of technology.  In this way, extensive and genuine social, and in the sequel, political transformation of postcolonial African society can be ensured, and the maximum impact of technology on society achieved (p. 43).

            The acknowledged task of technology, it is said, is to lighten the burden of  work man has to carry in order to stay alive and develop his potential.  On the face value, it is difficult to fault this assertion.  It is easy enough to see that technology fulfils this purpose when we watch any piece of machinery at work; a computer for instance, can do in seconds what it would take clerks or even mathematicians a very long time, if they can do it at all.  This is aside from the fact that one single crane can carry the weight which a battalion of soldiers cannot.  Obviously, work is reduced, and man finds more time to rest, but it increases other kinds of work.  Most astonishingly, technology has “thrown the child with the bath-water”; modern technology is most successful in reducing or even eliminating skilful, creative and productive work of human hands and brains, in touch with real materials of one kind or another.

            Such glorification of the works of science and technology, we have argued, has distressed, and destroyed man and society, and ravaged the entire ecosystem.  Virtually all real production (resulting from technical activity) has been turned into an inhuman chore which does not enrich a man but empties him.  “From the factory”, says Schumacher, “dead matter goes out improved, whereas men there are corrupted and degraded” (p. 146).  Agreed, man cannot live without science and technology any more than he can live against nature. What needs the most intelligent and careful consideration is understanding the essence of technology (in its forced revealing) and the legitimate role of human life in such revealing, and discovering the essence of ourselves on earth and within our environment in the world.  The ingenious endeavours of man’s brain and hands should (must) be directed towards non-violence, harmonious co-operation with nature, and towards the noiseless energy, elegant, and economic solutions normally applied in nature, in promoting and protecting a sustainable ecosystem.

            Giantism, the characteristic description of modern technological complexities and excesses, in which accumulated toxic substances, and or wastes, may have no chance of possible positive disposal at any date in human existence, thus committing future generations to tackle a problem (if they can at all), which they do not know how to handle.  Humanity, but Africa in particular may be on the path of authentic human existence if it adopts the position of a report on the control of pollution published by Her Majesty’s Stationary office, entitled Pollution: Nuisance or Nemesis.  It says in part, “it would be only prudent to slow down the nuclear power programme until we have solved the waste disposal problem…that no more nuclear reactors should be built until we know how to control their wastes (quoted from Schumacher” p. 40)

            The obvious conclusion is that, modern technology, which is founded on western static metaphysic, promotes and protects violence, destruction, inhumanity, exaggerated materialism, and so is one dimensional in outlook.  Such metaphysical outlook has not, and cannot engender progress and human development.

  Conclusion

            African humanistic heritage, which ingredients and concern for human behaviour and existence, is an important “better half” of what makes human existence meaningful.  It is thus at this point that we have advanced a philosophy of appropriate technology as an alternative to modern (western) technology.  Western (modern) technology is not culture neutral, and so, even its transfer cannot serve the intrinsic needs of Africans for want of cultural sameness, and it is bound to deliver him in the worst possible way.  Technology in its essence is far from neutral or merely an instrument of human control; it is an autonomous organizing activity within which humans themselves are organized, and not a means to an end.  Understanding technology as a means to an end entails not only decisively redirecting nature, but of consciously and actually setting-upon nature, which in itself conveys an atmosphere of violence and exploitation, degradation and dehumanisation.

            Such attitude to nature which find expression in modern technology as a “challenging-forth” has thus instigated the withdrawal of the human agency from technology and in its stead acquired an attitude of violence as the causal factors interplay.  To that extent, science and technology creates and sustain dangers and problems to the whole of creation for historical or even geological ages.  This is a transgression against the biosphere.  It is here argued that no degree of prosperity could justify such a transgression against life itself, which according to Schumacher (p. 141) is more serious than any crime ever perpetrated by man.  The idea that a civilization could sustain itself on the basis of such transgression is an ethical, spiritual and metaphysical monstrosity.  It means conducting the (economic) affairs of man as if people really did not matter at all, with emphasis on money, profits, and therefore giant operations.

            Heidegger named this context ‘enframing’ (Ge-stell).  But, “where enframing reigns”, he argues forcefully, “there is danger in the highest sense” (Heidegger, 1979:28).  This is because, the entire nature; human, technology, in their essences are challenged-forth for revelation.  The true essence of nature is in its revealing, its bringing-forth i.e. of causation as Plato expressed it in The symposium that Every occasion for whatever passes over and goes forward into presencing from that which is not presencing is poiesis, is bring-forth (p. 10), where revealing and unconcealment take place, where ale theia, truth happens (Heidegger, 1979:13).

            While not rejecting wholesale modern technology, we argue that the philosophy of creative imitation is the best option.  This is an argument to the effect that different human cultures can contribute to progress and human civilization.  Hence our association with Professor Sophie Oluwole’s conclusion that, “global problems today call for solutions that draw on the resources of different brands of thought” (Oluwole, 1992:122), which may perhaps contrast with Holderlin’s elegy “homecoming” i.e. return to our truly human nature.

            Thus asserted, human development is, a “totality” of the human person; the dynamic progression or upward movement in the spiritual, moral and material welfare of the human person and of all the people.  It is the maximal presence of the desirables on the one hand, and maximal absence of the undesirables on the other; it  is the progressive humanization of society, and harmonious relationships between humans and nature. “Man (humans) understood in this relationships”, is he who he is, heir and learner of all things”, and in the thought of Holderlin,  conversation whose future lies in the discovery of his essence on earth and within his environment in the world. (Heidegger, 1979:277)  This, in itself, calls humanity to a homecoming, i.e. bringing humanity back into its essence.  It is a return into the proximity of the source, the essence of being human, that towards which humanity should work for its good and being. This is what counts as creative human development; a creative imitation of technology that is appropriate to a receiving culture.

References

Drew, D. (1980). “Technology with a Human Face” in TOPIC, 131, pp. 50-53.

Dickson, D. (1974). Alternative Technology and the Politics of Technical Change, London, Fontana, Chapters 1,2,3,7.

Efemini, A. (1996). “Scientific and Technological Development in Nigeria: A Dialectical Approach”, in Uduigwomen, A.F. (ed.) A Test Book of History and Philosophy of Science, Aba, A.A.U. Industries (Publishing Division).

Gyekye, K. (1997). “Philosophy, Culture and Technology in the Post-Colonial Africa” in Eze, F.C. (ed.) Post Colonial African Philosophy.

Heidegger, M. (1979). “Holderlin and the Essence of Poetry” in Existence and Being, Int. Brock Werner South Bend, Ind: Regnery/Gateway, pp. 233-269.

Ifechukwu, J.A.O. (1991). The Secret of Western Technology: Myth or Reality, Lagos, Goldland Business Company Ltd. Publishing Division.

Kaunda, K. (1967). Humanism: A Guide to the Nation, Lusaka, Government Printer.

Newswatch (1990) February 12, p. 14.

Oluwole, S.B. (1992) “Africanness of a Philosophy” in Nagl-Decekal, H & Wimmer F.M. (ed.) PostKoloniales Philosophieren: Africa, Wei, Oldekbourg.

Schumacher, E.F. (1979). Small is Beautiful, New York, Harper & Row Publishers.

Uduigwomen, A.F. (1996), A Textbook of History and Philosophy of Science, Aba, A.A.U. Industries – Publishing Division.