Some basic premises - often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led - exercise the collective conscience of the led in in terms of they stimulate a willed development. The development is generally superior but certainly not civilized. The premises in question are with this form: "Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching this level, we also have 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 threat with their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development isn't praiseworthy, nor could it be morally justifiable. Since it's not morally justifiable, it's socially irresponsible. An examination of the premises will reveal it is the final one that poses a problem. The final premise is in conclusion of two preceding premises but isn't at all logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a summary from a rationally prepared mind, at the very least during the time at which it was deduced.
A society that advances based on the above presuppositions - and especially based on 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 fails to work precisely due to the superiority syndrome that grips the best choice and the led. And an alternative society that refuses to share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected logic, develop into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we understand the current world, obviously, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of such technology will also be, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It's not merely their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and progress an understanding of life and nature in an alternative direction, a direction that tends to get rid of, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that has been, in several respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does certainly not show that technological advancement is a mark of a superior civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we must know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people might have an advanced technology or they may not have it. Civilization is not really a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also has related to the moral and mental reflexes of individuals as well as their level of social connectedness within their particular society and beyond. It's from the typical behaviour makeup of individuals that most types of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, and others, that individuals can see in a society could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern may possibly also tell a lot concerning the extent to that the surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Especially, behavioural pattern could tell a lot concerning the perceptions and understanding of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually do believe - and, I do believe, most people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environmental surroundings 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 kinds of animals and fish has to shrink in size. The growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the requirement to control life without depending on the unpredictable condition of the surrounding prompt the utilization of technology. Technology will not need to pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It's the misuse of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve standard of living, its people also have to ask: "simply how much technology do we must safeguard the surrounding?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate utilization of technology with the surrounding to be able to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this sort of positioning prompts the purpose that society Y is a partner of the principle of balance. Using this principle, you can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability 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 suggests that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to reside at the mercy of the surrounding - which, obviously, can be an uncertain way of life - but according with their own predicted pace, then the utilization of technology is a matter of course. It would appear that the principle of balance that society Y has chosen could only be for a short while or that this really is more of a make-believe position than the usual real one. For when the energy of the human mind gratifies itself following a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is very unusual. It's as though the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or perhaps a gradual process can be an insult to the inquiring mind." This sort of way of thinking only highlights the enigma of your head, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the current mode of a specific technology based on the instructions of your head, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Can it be morally right to make use of this sort of technology for this sort of product? And could it be morally right to make use of this sort of product? Both questions hint that the product or products in question are either harmful or not, green or not, or that they cannot only cause harm right to humans but right to the environmental surroundings too. And if, as I've stated, the goal of technology is to improve the standard of living, then to make use of technology to produce products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the goal of technology, and additionally it falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it implies that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is not able to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the surrounding could have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas which can be untenable in a variety of ways.
The advocacy that is completed 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 may not indicate moral and social responsibility. And until now, the question might be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, most contemporary humans often believe a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to an easy one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mainly not. The former eases the burden of depending a lot of on the dictates of the surrounding, the latter does not. The latter has a tendency to seek a symbiotic relationship with the surrounding, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the surrounding is not 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 needed to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It's the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, and others, which can be needing criticism and need certainly to stop.
