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 of the form: "Our degree 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 dangerous precedent for other societies that fear a threat for their respective sovereignties. They're pushed to also foster a battle technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development isn't praiseworthy, nor can it be morally justifiable. Since it's not morally justifiable, it's socially irresponsible. An assessment of the premises will reveal that it is the past one which poses a problem. The last 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 conclusion from the rationally prepared mind, at least during the time at which it absolutely was deduced.
A community 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 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 generally 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/
Most of what we learn about today's 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 only their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They are able to also use technology to simplify and progress an knowledge of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to get rid of, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that has been, in lots of 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 are not conjugal terms. Civilized people might have a sophisticated technology or they may 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 regarding the moral and mental reflexes of individuals along with their degree of social connectedness within their particular society and beyond. It's from the general behaviour makeup of individuals that all types 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 people could 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 about 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 about the perceptions and knowledge of the people about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I do believe - and, I do believe, most people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the surroundings 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 natural environment prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It's the misuse of technology that's in question. While a culture may justly utilize technology to boost quality of life, its people also have to ask: "just how much technology do we need to safeguard the natural environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate usage of technology with the natural environment 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. Out of this principle, it's possible to 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 indicates that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to call home at the mercy of the natural environment - which, obviously, is an uncertain life style - but according for 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 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 very unusual. It's like the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or perhaps 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 today's mode of a specific technology in line with the instructions of your brain, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to make use of this sort of technology for this sort of product? And can it be morally right to make use of this sort of product? Both questions hint that the product or products under consideration are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they cannot only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the surroundings too. And if, as I have stated, the goal of technology is to boost the quality of life, then to make use of technology to create products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the goal of technology, and in addition it falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it suggests 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 natural environment would 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 any number of ways.
The advocacy that is done by environmentalists relate solely to 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 could 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 have a tendency to think that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to an easy 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 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 a matter that may be easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking because 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 can be needing criticism and need to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment