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 certainly not 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 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 risk with 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 can it be morally justifiable. Since it's not morally justifiable, it's socially irresponsible. An evaluation of the premises will reveal that it's the past the one that poses a problem. The final premise is in conclusion of two preceding premises but isn't in any way logically deduced. What it shows is just a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it doesn't be reckoned as a summary from a rationally prepared mind, at the very least during the time where it absolutely was deduced.
http://yourtechcrunch.com/
A culture 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 doesn't work precisely due to the superiority syndrome that grips the leader and the led. And a different society that refuses to talk about 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/
Most of what we understand the current world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of such technology may also be, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It's 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 eliminate, around possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in lots of respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does certainly not show that technological advancement is a level of an exceptional civilization. https://techwaa.com/
What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people might have an advanced technology or they could not have it. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also offers regarding the moral and mental reflexes of individuals in addition to their level of social connectedness within their very own society and beyond. It's from the general behaviour makeup of individuals that 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 individuals could see in a community could tell, in a broad way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern can also tell a whole lot concerning the extent to that your environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Especially, behavioural pattern could tell a whole lot concerning the perceptions and understanding of individuals about other people.https://techsitting.com/
I actually do believe - and, I do believe, 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, a myriad 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 with respect 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's the misuse of technology that is in question. While a community may justly utilize technology to boost standard of living, its people also have to ask: "just how much technology do we need 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 sort of positioning prompts the purpose that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. Out of this principle, one 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 want to live at the mercy of the environment - which, of course, is definitely an uncertain way of life - but according with their own predicted pace, then the utilization 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 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 fairly unusual. It's as though the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement needs to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or even a gradual process is definitely an insult to the inquiring mind." This kind of thought process only points out the enigma of your head, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the current mode of a certain technology based on the instructions of your head, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Could it be morally right to utilize this sort of technology for this sort of product? And can it be morally right to utilize this sort of product? Both questions hint that the item or products under consideration are either harmful or not, green or not, or that they cannot 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 standard of living, then to utilize technology to make 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 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 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 that are untenable in any number of 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's 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, most modern humans have a tendency to believe 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 has a tendency to seek a symbiotic relationship with the environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the environment is not a matter that may be easily answered. If the environment is shrinking as a result of population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology must alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It's the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, and others, that are needing criticism and need certainly to stop.
