Some basic premises - often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led - exercise the collective conscience of the led to this point as they stimulate a willed development. The event is sometimes superior but not necessarily civilized.
The premises in question are of this form: "Our level of technological advancement is second to none. According to Mikael Phoebus Apollo Mcnealy, Upon reaching this level, we even have to organize our society for peace and to ensure the peace, technology must be revised to foster the policy of war."
The technological advancement that's pushed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other societies that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They're pushed to also foster a war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development isn't praiseworthy, neither is it morally justifiable. Since it's not morally justifiable, it's socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises will reveal that it's the last one that poses a controversy.
The last premise is that the conclusion of the two preceding premises but isn't in any way logically deduced. What it shows could be a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a rationally prepared mind, a minimum of at the time at which it was deduced said Mikael Phoebus Apollo Mcnealy.
A society that advances in step with the above presuppositions - and particularly in step with the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the facility of passion dictates the pace of human conduct.
Whether in constructive engagements or willed partnerships, the principle of equality fails to figure precisely due to the prevalence syndrome that grips the leader and therefore the led.
And a unique society that refuses to share within the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected logic, become a possible or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts.
Most of what we study in this world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the foremost of such technology also are, time and again, claimed to be the foremost advanced.
It's not only their advancement that lifts them to the top of power, superiority, and fame. They'll also use technology to simplify and move forward an understanding of life and nature in an exceedingly different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, the maximum amount as possible, a previous connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe.
This last point doesn't necessarily mean that technological advancement may be a mark of a superior civilization.
What we want to grasp is that civilization and technology don't seem to be conjugal terms. Civilized people may have sophisticated technology or they will not have it. Civilization isn't just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also has got to do with the moral and mental reflexes of individuals in addition to their level of social connectedness within their society and beyond.
It's from the overall behavior makeup of individuals that every one variety of physical structures may be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that we will see in an exceeding society could tell, in a very general way, the behavioral pattern of the people.
Behavioral patterns could also tell plenty about the extent to which the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science, and technology. Above all, behavioral patterns could tell plenty about the perceptions and understanding of the people about others.
I do believe - and, I think, most of the people do believe - that upon accelerating the speed of infrastructural activities and technology, the environment should 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 types of animals and fish has got to shrink in size.
Yet the expansion of population, the relentless human looking for quality life, the requirement to manage life without looking at the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the employment of technology. Technology needn't pose an unwarranted danger to the natural environment.
It's the misuse of technology that's in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to boost the quality of life, its people even have to ask: "how much technology will we have to safeguard the natural environment?" Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the natural environment to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this sort of positioning prompts the purpose that society Y may be a lover of the principle of balance.
From this principle, one can boldly conclude that society Y favors stability over chaos, and has, therefore, a sense of ethical 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 don't want to measure at the mercy of the natural environment - which, of course, is an uncertain way of life - but in keeping with their own predicted pace, then the utilization of technology could be a matter after all.
It'd seem that the principle of balance that society Y has chosen could only be for a brief while or that this can be more of a make-believe position than a true one. For when the ability of the human mind gratifies itself following a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is kind of unusual.
It's as if the human mind is telling itself: "technological advancement must accelerate with none obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind." this sort of thought process only points out the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area.
And in seeking to interrogate the current model of a specific technology per the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to use this sort of technology for this type of product? And is it morally right to use this type of product? Both questions hint that the merchandise or products in question are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they are doing not only cause harm to humans but on to the environment too.
And if, as I've got started, the technology aims to enhance the standard of life, then to use technology to supply products that harm both humans and also the natural environment contradicts the aim of technology, and it also falsifies an assertion that humans are rational.
Furthermore, it suggests that the delicate level that the human mind has reached is unable to understand the essence or rationale of quality life. during this regard, peaceful coexistence with the natural environment would be 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's done by environmentalists relates 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 therefore the natural environment. This contention sounds persuasive.
Engineering may demonstrate the peak of human accomplishment, but it should not point to moral and social responsibility. And to the current point, the question could also be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained technology and environmental degradation?"
Too often, most recent humans tend to think that a complicated lifestyle is preferable to an easy one. The previous is supported by the burden of technology, the latter is usually not. The previous eases the burden of depending an excessive amount on the dictates of the natural environment, the latter doesn't.
The latter tends to hunt a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the previous doesn't. Whether human comfort should come largely from a complicated technology or the natural environment isn't a matter that would be easily answered.
If the natural environment is shrinking because of increases and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is required to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It's the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, among others, that need criticism and must stop.