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 definitely not civilized. The premises involved are of the 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 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 threat for their respective sovereignties. They are 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 examination of the premises will reveal it is the last one that poses a problem. The past premise is in conclusion of two preceding premises but is not by any means logically deduced. What it shows is really a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a rationally prepared mind, at the least during the time at which it was deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A community 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 best 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, develop into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Most of what we find out about today's 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 merely their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They could also use technology to simplify and progress 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 lots of respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does definitely not imply that technological advancement is a mark of a superior civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we have 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 just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people in addition to their amount of social connectedness within their very own society and beyond. It is from the overall behaviour makeup of people that most types of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that individuals can see in a community could tell, in a broad way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a whole lot concerning the extent to which the environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Especially, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot concerning the perceptions and understanding of the folks about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I really do believe - and, I believe, most 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, all kinds 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 depending on the unpredictable condition of the environment prompt the use of technology. Technology will not need to pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a community may justly utilize technology to boost quality of life, its people also have to ask: "simply how much technology do we have to safeguard the environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate usage 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. 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 shows that the environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to reside at the mercy of the environment - which, needless to say, can be an uncertain way of life - but according for their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is really 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 this 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 very unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or even a gradual process can be an insult to the inquiring mind." This type of thought process only highlights the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate today's mode of a particular technology in line with the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to utilize this type of technology for this type of product? And could it be morally right to utilize this type of product? Both questions hint that the item or products involved are either harmful or not, eco-friendly 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 goal 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 goal of technology, and it also 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 could have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas which are untenable in numerous 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 out moral and social responsibility. And up to now, the question may be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, most contemporary humans have a tendency to 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 too much on the dictates of the environment, the latter does not. The latter tends 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 just a matter that may be easily answered. If the environment is shrinking because of 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, among others, which are needing criticism and need certainly to stop.
