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 definitely not civilized. The premises in question are with this form: "Our degree 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 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 with their respective sovereignties. They are 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 examination of the premises will reveal that it's the last the one that poses a problem. The final premise is in conclusion of two preceding premises but is not at all 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 the least at the time where it had been deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A society 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 leader and the led. And a different 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 learn about the present world, of course, 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's not just their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and move ahead an understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to remove, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature which was, in several respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does definitely not imply that technological advancement is a level of an excellent civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we must know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people could have a sophisticated technology or they might 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 regarding the moral and mental reflexes of men and women in addition to their degree of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It's from the typical behaviour makeup of men and women that most forms of physical structures could possibly be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, and others, that we could see in a society could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a whole lot concerning the extent to that your environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Especially, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot concerning the perceptions and understanding of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I really do believe - and, I think, a lot of 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 need 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's in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to boost quality of life, its people also have to ask: "how much technology do we must 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 purpose 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 indicates that the environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not need to reside at the mercy of the environment - which, of course, is an uncertain way of life - but according with 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 a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position than the usual 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 fairly unusual. It's as though the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or even a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind." This sort of thought process only highlights the enigma of your brain, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a certain technology based on the instructions of your brain, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it 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, green or not, or that they do not only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environment too. And if, as I have stated, the objective of technology is to boost the quality of life, then to utilize technology to make 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 struggles to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the environment could 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 which 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 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 indicate moral and social responsibility. And to this point, 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 tend to genuinely believe that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to a simple 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 will 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 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, and others, which are in need of criticism and need certainly to stop.
