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 certainly not civilized. The premises in question 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 harmful 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 is not praiseworthy, nor could it be morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An examination of the premises will reveal that it's the last one which poses a problem. The last premise is the final outcome of two preceding premises but is not at all logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it doesn't be reckoned as a conclusion from the rationally prepared mind, at the very least during the time at which it had been deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
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 due to the superiority syndrome that grips the leader 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/
Most of what we find out about the current world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have probably the most of such technology may also be, time and again, claimed to be probably the most advanced. It is 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 certainly not show that technological advancement is a level of an exceptional civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we have to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people could have an advanced 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 even offers related to the moral and mental reflexes of men and women in addition to their level of social connectedness within their very own society and beyond. It is from the typical behaviour makeup of men and women that types of physical structures could possibly be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the sort of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, and others, that individuals can easily see in a culture could tell, in an over-all way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern can also tell a great deal in regards to the extent to that the environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Especially, behavioural pattern could tell a great deal in regards to the perceptions and understanding of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I really do believe - and, I think, most 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 necessity to control life without depending on the unpredictable condition of the environment prompt the usage 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 improve quality of life, its people also have to ask: "simply how much technology do we have to safeguard the environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate utilization of technology with the environment to be able to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the idea that society Y is a partner of the principle of balance. Out of this principle, one can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability significantly 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 suggests that the environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to reside at the mercy of the environment - which, of course, can be an uncertain life style - but according for their own predicted pace, then the usage of technology is 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 that is more of a make-believe position than the usual 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 fairly unusual. It is as though the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process can be an insult to the inquiring mind." This type of thought process only points out the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the current mode of a specific technology based on the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to utilize this kind of technology for this kind of product? And could it be morally right to utilize this kind of product? Both questions hint that the merchandise or products in question are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they cannot only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environment too. And if, as I have stated, the objective of technology is to improve the quality of life, then to utilize technology to produce products that harm both humans and the environment contradicts the objective 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 unable to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the 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 are untenable in numerous ways.
The advocacy that is completed 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 out 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, modern humans tend to genuinely 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 a lot of on the dictates of the environment, the latter does not. The latter will seek a symbiotic relationship with the environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the environment is not a matter that may be easily answered. If the 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 in need of criticism and need to stop.
