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 usually superior but not necessarily civilized. The premises involved are of the form: "Our degree 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 should 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 to their respective sovereignties. They are 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 that it's the final one that poses a problem. The last premise is in conclusion of two preceding premises but isn't in any way logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it doesn't be reckoned as a conclusion from the rationally prepared mind, at the least at the time where it was deduced.
A culture 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 energy of passion dictates the pace of human conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or willed partnerships, the principle of equality doesn't work precisely due to 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, become a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Most of what we understand the present world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies which have the most of such technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They could also use technology to simplify and progress an comprehension of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to get rid of, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily imply 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 may have an advanced technology or they may not need it. Civilization is not just 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 particular society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup of people that all types of physical structures could possibly be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, amongst others, that individuals can see in a culture could tell, in a broad way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern may possibly also tell a great deal concerning the extent to which the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a great deal concerning the perceptions and comprehension of the people about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I do believe - and, I think, many people do believe - that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the surroundings 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. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the requirement to control life without with respect to the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the utilization 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 culture may justly utilize technology to enhance standard of living, its people also need to ask: "simply how much technology do we must safeguard the natural environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate usage of technology with the natural environment in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this sort of positioning prompts the idea that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. Out of this principle, you can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability 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 natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not need to live at the mercy of the natural environment - which, of course, is definitely 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 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 quite unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is definitely an insult to the inquiring mind." This type of way of thinking only points out the enigma of your head, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a particular technology according to the instructions of your head, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to use this sort of technology for this sort of product? And could it be morally right to use this sort of product? Both questions hint that the product or products involved are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they don't only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the surroundings too. And if, as I've stated, the purpose of technology is to enhance the standard of living, then to use technology to make products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of technology, and in addition it falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is not able to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural 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 any number of 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 surely 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, 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 mostly not. The former eases the burden of depending too much on the dictates of the natural environment, the latter does not. The latter has a tendency to seek a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the natural environment is not just a matter that could be easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking because 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, amongst others, which are needing criticism and have to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment