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 generally superior but certainly not civilized. The premises involved 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 harmful precedent for other societies that fear a risk with 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 is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises will reveal that it is the last one that poses a problem. The past premise is the conclusion of two preceding premises but is not in any way 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 of which it was deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A community 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/
Most of what we understand the current world, needless to say, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have the most of such technology will also be, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not just their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They could also use technology to simplify and move forward an comprehension of life and nature in an alternative direction, a direction that tends to remove, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does certainly not show 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 might have an advanced technology or they could not need it. Civilization is not only a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it even offers to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people along with their degree of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It is from the overall behaviour makeup of people that all forms of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, and others, that we can easily see in a culture could tell, in an over-all way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern may also tell a whole lot about the extent to that the surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Especially, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot about the perceptions and comprehension of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually do believe - and, I do believe, a lot of people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the surroundings 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, a myriad of animals and fish has to shrink in size. Yet 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 surrounding prompt the usage of technology. Technology do not need to pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a culture may justly utilize technology to improve quality of life, its people also have to ask: "just how much technology do we must safeguard the surrounding?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the surrounding to be able to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this type of positioning prompts the point 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 suggests that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not need to reside at the mercy of the surrounding - which, needless to say, is definitely an uncertain life style - but according with their own predicted pace, then the usage 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 some time or that that is more of a make-believe position when compared to 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 very unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to 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 your brain, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the current mode of a particular technology according to the instructions of your brain, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to utilize this type of technology for this type of product? And is it morally right to utilize this type of product? Both questions hint that the product or products involved are either harmful or not, eco-friendly or not, or that they don't only cause harm right to humans but right to the surroundings too. And if, as I've stated, the goal of technology is to improve the quality of life, then to utilize technology to produce products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the goal 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 surrounding could have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would, because it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in any number of ways.
The advocacy that is completed by environmentalists relate solely to 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 may not point to moral and social responsibility. And until 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 than 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 too much on the dictates of the surrounding, the latter does not. The latter will seek a symbiotic relationship with the surrounding, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the surrounding is not a matter that would be easily answered. If the surrounding is shrinking as a result of population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is required to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, and others, that are in need of criticism and need to stop.
