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 usually superior but definitely not civilized. The premises involved are of the form: "Our amount 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 be revised to foster the policy of war." Technological advancement that's pushed in this direction sets a harmful precedent for other societies that fear a risk to their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a battle technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it's not morally justifiable, it's socially irresponsible. An evaluation of the premises will reveal that it's the past one which poses a problem. The last premise is in conclusion of two preceding premises but is not 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 a rationally prepared mind, at the very least during the time at which it had been 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 because of the superiority syndrome that grips the first 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, turn into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we understand today's world, needless to say, 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's not merely their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They could also use technology to simplify and progress an understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature which was, in lots of respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does definitely not show that technological advancement is a level of an exceptional civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people might have a sophisticated technology or they may not have it. Civilization is not just 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 amount of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It's from the overall behaviour makeup of individuals that most kinds of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the sort of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, amongst others, that we could see in a society could tell, in a broad way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern can also tell a lot concerning the extent to that your surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Most importantly, behavioural pattern could tell a lot concerning the perceptions and understanding of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually do believe - and, I do believe, many people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environment needs 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, a myriad of animals and fish needs 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 use of technology. Technology will not need to pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It's the misuse of technology that's in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to boost standard of living, its people also have to ask: "simply 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 type of positioning prompts the point that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. Using this principle, it's possible to 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 shows that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not need to call home at the mercy of the surrounding - which, needless to say, is an uncertain life-style - but according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Y has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position when compared to a real one. For when the energy of the human mind gratifies itself adhering to a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is fairly unusual. It's like the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or even a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind." This type of way of thinking only points out the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate today's mode of a certain technology based on the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Can it be morally right to make use of this type of technology for this type of product? And is it morally right to make use of this type of product? Both questions hint that the merchandise or products involved are either harmful or not, green or not, or that they don't only cause harm right to humans but right to the environment too. And if, as I've stated, the purpose of technology is to boost the standard of living, then to make use of technology to create products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the purpose of technology, and additionally it falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it suggests 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 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 are untenable in any number of ways.
The advocacy that is performed by environmentalists connect with the question of environmental degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They insist that there's 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 to moral and social responsibility. And up to now, the question might be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, modern humans have a tendency to believe a sophisticated lifestyle is better than a straightforward one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mostly not. The former eases the burden of depending an excessive amount 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 really a matter that may be easily answered. If the surrounding is shrinking as a result of population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology must 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 need certainly to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment