The premises in concern are of this form: “Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Technological advancement that is pressed in this direction sets an unsafe precedent for other societies that fear a risk to their respective sovereignties. They are pressed to also cultivate a war innovation.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not admirable, nor is it morally understandable. Because it is not morally reasonable, it is socially careless. An inspection of the properties will reveal that it is the last one that positions a problem. The last facility is the conclusion of two preceding facilities but is not in any method rationally deduced. Exactly what it reveals is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a reasonably ready mind, a minimum of at the time at which it was deduced.
A society that advances according to the above presuppositions– and particularly inning accordance with the illogical conclusion – has actually transferred the mind of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the power of passion determines the pace of human conduct. Whether in positive engagements or willed collaborations, the concept of equality cannot work specifically since of the superiority syndrome that grips the leader and the led. And a different society that refuses to share in the cumulative perceptiveness or passion of such society has, by the anticipated logic, become a prospective or real enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts.
Societies that have the many of such innovation are likewise, time and again, declared to be the most sophisticated. They can also utilize technology to streamline and move forward an understanding of life and nature in a various direction, a direction that tends to get rid of, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many aspects, magical and hazardous.
Exactly what we have to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have a sophisticated innovation or they may not have it. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or technical facilities, or, once again, the marvel of buildings; it likewise has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people as well as their level of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup of people that all types of physical structures could be developed, so too the concern of science and innovation. Therefore, the kind of bridges, roadways, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that we can see in a society could tell, in a general method, the behavioural pattern of individuals. Behavioural pattern could likewise tell a lot about the level to which the natural environment has actually been used for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could inform a lot about the perceptions and understanding of the people about other individuals.
As soon as advancing innovation (and its attendant structures or ideas) completes with the green environment for area, this environment that houses trees, turf, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to diminish in size. The growth of population, the ruthless human yearning for quality life, the requirement to control life without depending on the unforeseeable condition of the natural environment trigger the usage of innovation. Any modern innovation points to the sophistication of the human mind, and it shows that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not wish to live at the grace of the natural environment– which, obviously, is an unsure way of living– but inning accordance with their own anticipated pace, then making use of technology refers course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Y has picked might just be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position than a real one. For when the power of the human mind pleases itself following a momentous achievement in innovation, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is rather uncommon. It is as if the human mind is informing itself: “technological advancement has to speed up with no blockage. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the asking mind.” This kind of believed process just mentions the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest location. And in seeking to question today mode of a certain technology inning accordance with the instructions of the mind, the role of principles is important.
Is it morally right to use this type of technology for this kind of product? And is it morally right to use this kind of product? Both concerns hint that the item or items in concern are either harmful or not, eco-friendly or not, or that they do not only trigger harm straight to human beings however straight to the environment too. And if, as I have actually mentioned, the purpose of innovation is to improve the lifestyle, then to utilize technology to produce items that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of innovation, and it also falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. It recommends that the sophisticated level that the human mind has actually reached is not able to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural surroundings would have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, asking human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are illogical in any number of ways.
The advocacy that is done by environmentalists associate with the concern of ecological destruction and its negative effects on humans. They firmly insist that there is no justification for producing modern items that damage both humans and the natural surroundings. This contention sounds persuasive. High technology might show the height of human achievement, however it might not point to ethical and social responsibility. And to this point, the concern may be asked: “In exactly what ways can people close the chasm in between unrestrained high innovation and ecological degradation?”
Too often, most modern people tend to believe that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to an easy one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mostly not. The former alleviates the problem of depending excessive on the determines of the natural environment, the latter does not. The latter tends to look for a cooperative relationship with the natural environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort needs to come mostly from a sophisticated technology or the natural surroundings is not a matter that might be quickly addressed. If the natural environment is shrinking due to population growth and other inescapable causes, then advanced technology is needed to reduce the pressures to human convenience that develop. It is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war innovation, high-tech items, among others, that need criticism and need to stop.
The development of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the need to manage life without depending on the unforeseeable condition of the natural environment trigger the usage of innovation. Any state-of-the-art innovation points to the elegance of the human mind, and it indicates that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to live at the grace of the natural environment– which, of course, is an uncertain way of life– but according to their own forecasted pace, then the usage of innovation is a matter of course. And if, as I have actually stated, the function of innovation is to improve the quality of life, then to utilize technology to produce products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of technology, and it likewise falsifies an assertion that human beings are reasonable. If the natural environment is diminishing due to population development and other inescapable causes, then advanced technology is required to ease the pressures to human comfort that arise.