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 normally superior but certainly 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 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 threat for their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a battle technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development isn't praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it's not morally justifiable, it's socially irresponsible. An examination of the premises will reveal that it is the last one which poses a problem. The last premise is the conclusion of two preceding premises but isn't by any means 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 least at the time where it was deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A culture that advances according to the above presuppositions - and especially according to the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the power 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 best choice and the led. And an alternative society that refuses to talk about 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/
Nearly all of what we understand the present world, obviously, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have the most of such technology may also be, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and move ahead an comprehension of life and nature in an alternative direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in several respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does certainly not mean that technological advancement is a level of an exceptional civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we must know is that civilization and technology aren't conjugal terms. Civilized people might 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 related to the moral and mental reflexes of individuals as well as their degree of social connectedness within their very own society and beyond. It is from the typical behaviour makeup of individuals that kinds of physical structures might be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, amongst others, that people could see in a community could tell, in a broad way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a great deal in regards to the extent to which the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Most importantly, behavioural pattern could tell a great deal in regards to the perceptions and comprehension of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually do believe - and, I believe, a lot of 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 necessity to control life without depending on the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the utilization of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that's in question. While a community may justly utilize technology to improve 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 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 lover of the principle of balance. Using this principle, you 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 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 for their own predicted pace, then the utilization of technology is just 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 power of the human mind gratifies itself following a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite 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 is an insult to the inquiring mind." This sort of way of thinking only points out the enigma of your brain, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a particular technology according to the instructions of your brain, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Can it be morally right to use this sort of technology for this sort of product? And is it morally right to use this sort of product? Both questions hint that the merchandise or products under consideration are either harmful or not, eco-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 objective of technology is to improve the quality of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the objective of technology, and it also 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 can be untenable in a variety of ways.
The advocacy that is done by environmentalists connect with the question of environmental degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They insist that there 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 might be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, most contemporary humans have a tendency to think that a sophisticated lifestyle is better than 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 a lot of on the dictates of the natural environment, the latter does not. The latter has a tendency to 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 just a matter that would 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, amongst others, which can be needing criticism and need certainly to stop.
