Some basic premises - often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led - exercise the collective conscience of the led in so far as they stimulate a willed development. The development is generally superior but definitely not civilized. The premises under consideration are with this form: "Our amount of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching this level, we also need to prepare our society for peace, and to guarantee the peace, technology must certanly be revised to foster the policy of war." Technological advancement that is pushed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other societies that fear a risk to their respective sovereignties. They're pushed to also foster a war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development isn't praiseworthy, nor can it be morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An examination of the premises will reveal it is the final the one that poses a problem. The last premise is the conclusion of two preceding premises but isn't at all logically deduced. What it shows is really a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it doesn't be reckoned as a summary from a rationally prepared mind, at the least during the time of which it absolutely was deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A society that advances according to the above presuppositions - and especially according to the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the energy of passion dictates the pace of human conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or willed partnerships, the principle of equality doesn't work precisely because of the superiority syndrome that grips the best choice and the led. And a different society that refuses to fairly share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected logic, become a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we find out about today's world, obviously, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the absolute most of such technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the absolute most advanced. It is not just their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and move forward an knowledge of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does definitely not signify technological advancement is a mark of a superior civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we need to know is that civilization and technology aren't conjugal terms. Civilized people might have a sophisticated technology or they may not need it. Civilization is not really a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also offers regarding the moral and mental reflexes of individuals as well as their amount of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup of individuals that types of physical structures might be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the sort of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, amongst others, that we can easily see in a community could tell, in a broad way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern can also tell a whole lot in regards to the extent to which the surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot in regards to the perceptions and knowledge of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually do believe - and, I do believe, a lot of people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environment has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and its attendant structures or ideas) competes with the green environment for space, this environment that houses trees, grass, flowers, all sorts of animals and fish has to shrink in size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the necessity to control life without with regards to the unpredictable condition of the surrounding prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a community may justly utilize technology to boost quality of life, its people also need to ask: "just how much technology do we need to safeguard the surrounding?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate usage of technology with the surrounding to be able to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the purpose that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, you can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability a lot more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of moral and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the sophistication of the human mind, and it shows that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not need to live at the mercy of the surrounding - which, obviously, is definitely an uncertain life-style - but according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is really a matter of course. It would appear that the principle of balance that society Y has chosen could only be for some time or that this is more of a make-believe position than the usual real one. For when the energy of the human mind gratifies itself carrying out a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or even a gradual process is definitely an insult to the inquiring mind." This sort of thought process only highlights the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate today's mode of a specific technology according to the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to use this kind of technology for this kind of product? And can it be morally right to use this kind of product? Both questions hint that the item or products under consideration are either harmful or not, eco-friendly or not, or that they cannot only cause harm right to humans but right to the environment too. And if, as I have stated, the goal of technology is to boost the quality of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the goal of technology, and it also falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it implies that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached struggles to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the surrounding would have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would, since it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in numerous ways.
The advocacy that is performed by environmentalists relate solely to the question of environmental degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They insist that there surely is no justification for producing high-tech products that harm both humans and the natural environment. This contention sounds persuasive. High technology may demonstrate the height of human accomplishment, but it might not point out moral and social responsibility. And until now, the question may be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, modern humans tend to believe that a sophisticated lifestyle is better than a simple one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is certainly caused by not. The former eases the burden of depending a lot of on the dictates of the surrounding, the latter does not. The latter tends to seek a symbiotic relationship with the surrounding, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from a sophisticated technology or the surrounding is not just a matter that would be easily answered. If the surrounding is shrinking as a result of population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is required to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, amongst others, that are needing criticism and have to stop.
