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 normally superior but certainly not civilized. The premises in question are of this form: "Our degree 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'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 war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development isn't praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An evaluation of the premises will reveal that it's the last the one that poses a problem. The final premise is the final outcome of two preceding premises but isn't in any way logically deduced. What it shows is just a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a summary from the rationally prepared mind, at the 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 because of 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, become a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we find out about the present world, obviously, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have the absolute most of such technology may also be, 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 progress an understanding of life and nature in an alternative direction, a direction that tends to remove, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that has been, in several respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does certainly not mean that technological advancement is a mark of an exceptional civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we must know is that civilization and technology aren't conjugal terms. Civilized people may have a sophisticated technology or they might not need it. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of individuals in addition to their degree of social connectedness within their particular society and beyond. It is 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 type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, and others, that individuals can see in a culture could tell, in an over-all way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a whole lot in regards to the extent to that the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Most importantly, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot in regards to the perceptions and understanding of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I really do believe - and, I think, many people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the 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 sorts of animals and fish has to shrink in size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that's in question. While a culture may justly utilize technology to enhance quality of life, its people also need to ask: "just how much technology do we must safeguard the natural environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this type of positioning prompts the idea that society Y is a partner of the principle of balance. Using this principle, one 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 natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not need to live at the mercy of the natural environment - which, obviously, is an uncertain life-style - but according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is just 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 a 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 fairly unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or even a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind." This type of thought process only highlights the enigma of your brain, 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 your brain, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it 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 item or products in question are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they don't only cause harm straight to humans but straight to the surroundings too. And if, as I've stated, the purpose of technology is to enhance the quality of life, then to make use of technology to make products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of technology, and additionally it falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it shows that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is unable to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural environment 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 a variety of ways.
The advocacy that is performed by environmentalists relate 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 might not point out 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, most modern humans often believe that 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 too much on the dictates of the natural environment, the latter does not. The latter will seek a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from a sophisticated technology or the natural environment is not really a matter that could be easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking due to population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology must alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, and others, which are needing criticism and have to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment