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 usually superior but certainly not civilized. The premises in question are of 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 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 risk to their respective sovereignties. They're pushed to also foster a war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development isn't praiseworthy, nor could it be morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An assessment of the premises will reveal it is the last the one that poses a problem. The past premise is the final outcome of two preceding premises but isn't in any way logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from the rationally prepared mind, at the least at the time at which it had been deduced.
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, develop into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Most of what we find out about the present world, needless to say, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the absolute most of such technology will also be, time and again, claimed to be the absolute most advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They are able to also use technology to simplify and progress an knowledge of life and nature in an alternative direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that has been, in several respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does certainly 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 may not have it. Civilization is not only a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also offers to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people as well as their degree of social connectedness within their very own society and beyond. It is from the overall behaviour makeup of people that all kinds of physical structures could possibly be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, and others, that we could see in a society could tell, in an over-all way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a whole lot in regards to the extent to that your surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Especially, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot in regards to the perceptions and knowledge of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I do believe - and, I think, most people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environment 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 kinds of animals and fish has 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 surrounding prompt the utilization of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to boost quality of life, its people also have to ask: "just how much technology do we need to safeguard the surrounding?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate usage of technology with the surrounding in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this type of positioning prompts the purpose that society Y is a lover 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 surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to live at the mercy of the surrounding - which, needless to say, is an uncertain life-style - but according to their own predicted pace, then the utilization of technology is 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 than a real one. For when the power of the human mind gratifies itself carrying out a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind." This kind of thought process only highlights the enigma of your head, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a specific technology based on the instructions of your head, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to make use of this type of technology for this type of product? And could it be morally right to make use of this type of product? Both questions hint that the product 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've stated, the goal of technology is to boost the quality of life, then to make use of technology to create products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the goal 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 surrounding 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 which can be untenable in a variety of ways.
The advocacy that is completed by environmentalists relate genuinely to 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 could not point out 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, modern 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 mainly not. The former eases the burden of depending too much on the dictates of the surrounding, the latter does not. The latter has a tendency 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 would be easily answered. If the surrounding 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 can be in need of criticism and need to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment