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 generally superior but definitely not civilized. The premises involved are of 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 certanly 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 risk for their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor can it be morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An examination of the premises will reveal it is the last one that poses a problem. The final premise is the final outcome 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 fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a rationally prepared mind, at least during the time of which it had been deduced.
A society 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 due to the superiority syndrome that grips the first choice and the led. And an alternative society that refuses to fairly 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/
Most of what we find out about the current world, of course, 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 just their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They are able to also use technology to simplify and move ahead 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 which was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does definitely not show that technological advancement is a level of a superior civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we need to know is that civilization and technology aren't conjugal terms. Civilized people may have an enhanced technology or they could not have it. Civilization is not only a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it even offers related to the moral and mental reflexes of individuals along with their amount of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It's from the general behaviour makeup of individuals that kinds of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that people can easily see in a society could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern may possibly also tell a whole lot in regards to the extent to that the surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot in regards to the perceptions and understanding of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I really do believe - and, I do believe, many people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environmental 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 requirement to control life without with respect to 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 enhance quality of life, its people also need to ask: "just how much technology do we need to safeguard the surrounding?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate utilization of technology with the surrounding to be able to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the point 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 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 need to reside at the mercy of the surrounding - which, of course, is definitely an uncertain way of life - but according for their own predicted pace, then the use 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 some time or that that 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 though the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is definitely an insult to the inquiring mind." This kind of thought process only points out the enigma of your brain, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the current mode of a particular technology in line with the instructions of your brain, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to use this kind of technology for this kind of product? And can it be morally right to use this kind of product? Both questions hint that the item or products involved are either harmful or not, green or not, or that they cannot only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environmental surroundings too. And if, as I have stated, the objective of technology is to enhance the quality of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the objective of technology, and in addition it falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it implies 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 surrounding could 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 numerous 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 surely 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 could 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 genuinely believe that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to an easy 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 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 an enhanced technology or the surrounding is not really a matter that might be easily answered. If the surrounding is shrinking due to 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, among others, that are needing criticism and need to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment