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 definitely not civilized. The premises involved are of the form: "Our level 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 be revised to foster the policy of war." The technological advancement that's 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 isn't praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it's not morally justifiable, it's socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises will reveal that it's the final one which poses a problem. The past 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 the very least at the time of which it was deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A society that advances in line with the above presuppositions - and especially in line with the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the energy 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 first choice and the led. And a different society that refuses to share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected logic, turn into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we find out about the present world, needless to say, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have probably the most of such technology will also be, time and again, claimed to be probably the most advanced. It is not just 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 understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to get rid of, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does definitely not signify technological advancement is a mark of an excellent civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we have to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have an enhanced technology or they may not need it. Civilization is not only a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also has regarding the moral and mental reflexes of individuals as well as their level of social connectedness within their very own society and beyond. It is from the overall behaviour makeup of individuals that most forms of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, and others, that individuals can see in a culture could tell, in an over-all way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern can also tell a lot about the extent to that your environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Most importantly, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the perceptions and understanding of the people about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I really do believe - and, I 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, all sorts of animals and fish has to shrink in size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the need to control life without with respect to the unpredictable condition of the environment prompt the usage of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that's in question. While a culture may justly utilize technology to boost quality of life, its people also need to ask: "simply how much technology do we have to safeguard the environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the environment in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this type of positioning prompts the purpose 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 suggests that the environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not need to call home at the mercy of the environment - which, needless to say, is an uncertain way of life - 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 a short while or that that is more of a make-believe position than the usual real one. For when the energy of the human mind gratifies itself adhering to a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is fairly unusual. It is like the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or perhaps 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 particular technology in line with 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 is it morally right to make use of this type of product? Both questions hint that the product or products involved are either harmful or not, green or not, or that they don't only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the surroundings too. And if, as I have stated, the goal of technology is to boost the quality of life, then to make use of technology to produce products that harm both humans and the environment contradicts the goal of technology, and additionally it falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it implies 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 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 any number 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 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 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 often think that a sophisticated lifestyle is better a straightforward 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 too much 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 an enhanced technology or the environment is not a matter that could be easily answered. If the environment 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.
