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 not necessarily civilized. The premises in question are with this form: "Our amount 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 is pushed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other societies that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They're pushed to also foster a war 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 inspection of the premises will reveal that it is the past one which poses a problem. The last premise is the final outcome of two preceding premises but is not by any means logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a summary from the rationally prepared mind, at least during the time of which it was deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A culture 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 power 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 best 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/
Nearly all of what we understand today's world, needless to say, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of such technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It's not merely their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and move forward an comprehension of life and nature in an alternative direction, a direction that tends to get rid of, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in lots of respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily mean that technological advancement is a mark of a superior civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we must know is that civilization and technology aren't conjugal terms. Civilized people may have a sophisticated technology or they could not need it. Civilization is not really a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also offers related to the moral and mental reflexes of individuals as well as their amount of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It's from the typical behaviour makeup of individuals that forms of physical structures might be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that individuals could see in a community could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern can also tell a whole lot in regards to the extent to which the environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot in regards to the perceptions and comprehension of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I do believe - and, I think, a lot of people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environmental surroundings must 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 must shrink in size. 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 environment prompt the use of technology. Technology will not need to pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It's the misuse of technology that is in question. While a community may justly utilize technology to enhance quality of life, its people also have to ask: "just how much technology do we must safeguard the environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the environment to be able to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this sort of positioning prompts the point that society Y is a partner of the principle of balance. Out of 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 environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to call home at the mercy of the environment - which, needless to say, is definitely an uncertain life style - but according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It appears to be 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 than a real one. For when the power of the human mind gratifies itself adhering to a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It's like the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement must accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or perhaps a gradual process is definitely an insult to the inquiring mind." This kind of thought process only points out 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 sort of technology for this sort of product? And could it be morally right to utilize this sort of product? Both questions hint that the item or products in question are either harmful or not, eco-friendly or not, or that they do not only cause harm right to humans but right to the environmental surroundings too. And if, as I've stated, the purpose of technology is to enhance the quality of life, then to utilize technology to create products that harm both humans and the environment contradicts the purpose 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 struggles 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, since 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 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 might not point out moral and social responsibility. And until now, 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 often believe that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to an easy one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mainly not. The former eases the burden of depending a lot of on the dictates of the environment, the latter does not. The latter has a tendency to seek a symbiotic relationship with the environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from a sophisticated technology or the environment is not just a matter that may be easily answered. If the environment is shrinking due to 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, among others, that are needing criticism and need to stop.
