Some basic premises - often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led - exercise the collective conscience of the led in as far as they stimulate a willed development. The development is usually superior but not necessarily 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 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 for 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 is it 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 by any means logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from the rationally prepared mind, at least during the time where it absolutely was deduced.
A culture that advances in line with the above presuppositions - and especially in line with the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the ability 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 first choice and the led. And an alternative society that refuses to generally share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected logic, turn into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we understand the present world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have probably the most of such technology may also be, time and again, claimed to be probably the most advanced. It's not just their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and progress an knowledge of life and nature in an alternative direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in several respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily signify technological advancement is a level of an excellent civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have an enhanced technology or they could not need it. Civilization is not only 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 men and women along with their amount of social connectedness within their particular society and beyond. It's from the general behaviour makeup of men and women that all forms of physical structures could possibly be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, amongst others, that we can easily see in a society could tell, in an over-all way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern may possibly also tell a whole lot in regards to the extent to that your surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Most importantly, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot in regards to the perceptions and knowledge of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually do believe - and, I 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. The growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the necessity 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 boost standard of living, its people also need to ask: "just how much technology do we need to safeguard the surrounding?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the surrounding in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the idea that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. From 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 indicates that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to reside at the mercy of the surrounding - which, of course, is an uncertain life style - but according for 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 some time or that this is more of a make-believe position than the usual real one. For when the ability of the human mind gratifies itself adhering to a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It's like the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or perhaps a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind." This sort of way of thinking only highlights the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a specific technology in line with the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to utilize this kind of technology for this kind of product? And is it morally right to utilize this kind of product? Both questions hint that the product or products under consideration are either harmful or not, green or not, or that they do not only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environment too. And if, as I have stated, the goal of technology is to boost the standard of living, then to utilize technology to make 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 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 which are untenable in a variety of ways.
The advocacy that is completed by environmentalists relate with the question of environmental degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They insist that there 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 point out moral and social responsibility. And to this point, the question might be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, most modern humans tend to believe a sophisticated lifestyle is better a simple one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mostly 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 enhanced technology or the surrounding is not really 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, amongst others, which are needing criticism and have to stop.
