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 definitely not civilized. The premises under consideration are of the 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 should 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 with their respective sovereignties. They're pushed to also foster a battle technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor could 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 that 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 really a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it doesn't be reckoned as a conclusion from the rationally prepared mind, at the least during the time where it absolutely was deduced.
A community 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 doesn't work precisely because of the superiority syndrome that grips the first 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, turn into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we learn about today's world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have the absolute most of such technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the absolute most advanced. It's not only 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 remove, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that has been, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does definitely not signify technological advancement is a level of a superior civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people could have an advanced technology or they might not have it. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it even offers regarding the moral and mental reflexes of individuals in addition to their level of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It's from the typical 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, and others, that people can easily see in a society could tell, in an over-all way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a lot concerning the extent to that the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Most importantly, behavioural pattern could tell a lot concerning the perceptions and knowledge of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I do believe - and, I think, most people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environmental 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, all sorts of animals and fish needs to shrink in size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the necessity to control life without with regards to the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the usage of technology. Technology need not 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 enhance quality of life, its people also have to ask: "simply how much technology do we need to safeguard the natural environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the natural environment 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, one 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 shows that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to reside at the mercy of the natural environment - which, of course, is an uncertain life style - but according with their own predicted pace, then the usage of technology is really 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 really is more of a make-believe position when compared to a 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 if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or perhaps a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind." This kind of thought process only highlights 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.
Could it be morally right to utilize this type of technology for this type of product? And could it be morally right to utilize this type of product? Both questions hint that the merchandise or products under consideration are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they don't only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environmental surroundings too. And if, as I have stated, the goal of technology is to enhance the quality of life, then to utilize technology to make products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the goal 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 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, because it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in a variety of ways.
The advocacy that is done 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 may not indicate moral and social responsibility. And up to now, the question may be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, most contemporary humans tend to believe that a sophisticated lifestyle is better a simple one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is certainly caused by not. The former eases the burden of depending a lot of on the dictates of the natural environment, the latter does not. The latter tends to seek a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the natural environment is not really a matter that could be easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking because of population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is required to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It's the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, and others, that are needing criticism and need certainly to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment