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 not necessarily civilized. The premises under consideration are of this form: "Our level 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 certanly 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 with 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 can it be morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An evaluation of the premises will reveal that it's the last one that poses a problem. The last premise is the final outcome of two preceding premises but is not in any way 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 very least at the time where it had been deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A society 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 ability 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, turn into a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts. https://arstechnician.com/
Nearly all of what we understand today's world, needless to say, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the absolute most of such technology may 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 could also use technology to simplify and move forward 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 has been, in lots of respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily imply that technological advancement is a mark of an excellent 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 related to the moral and mental reflexes of people along with their level of social connectedness within their particular society and beyond. It is from the typical behaviour makeup of people that all forms of physical structures might be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, amongst others, that individuals can see in a society could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern may also tell a lot about the extent to that the environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Most importantly, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the perceptions and understanding of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually 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 necessity to control life without with regards to the unpredictable condition of the 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 society may justly utilize technology to boost standard of living, its people also have 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 kind 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 a lot 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 live at the mercy of the environment - which, needless to say, is definitely an uncertain way of life - but according with their own predicted pace, then the utilization of technology is really a matter of course. It would appear 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 ability 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 like the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without the obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is definitely an insult to the inquiring mind." This sort of thought process only highlights the enigma of your head, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate today's mode of a particular technology based on the instructions of your head, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to make use of this kind of technology for this kind of product? And can it be morally right to make use of this kind of product? Both questions hint that the merchandise or products under consideration 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 purpose of technology is to boost the standard of living, then to make use of technology to make products that harm both humans and the environment contradicts the purpose 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 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 which are untenable in numerous ways.
The advocacy that is performed 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 might not indicate moral and social responsibility. And up to now, 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 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 certainly caused by not. The former eases the burden of depending an excessive amount of 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 really a matter that would be easily answered. If the environment is shrinking due to population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is needed 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 in need of criticism and need certainly to stop.
