Big Technology and Human Development

Some basic premises - often fashioned by leaders and supported by the headed - exercise the collective conscience of the led on so far as they stimulate a willed development. The progression is usually superior but not necessarily civilized. The premises showcased are of this form: "Our level of technological advancement is certainly second to non-e. Upon reaching this level, we all also have to prepare our society for peace, and to warrant the peace, technology must be revised to foster any policy of war. " Technological advancement that is pressed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other sorts of societies that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a war systems.

In the domain of civilization, this mode of production is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it seriously isn't morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection belonging to the premises will reveal that it is the last one that poses a dilemma. The last premise is the conclusion of two preceding manufacturing unit but is not in any way logically deduced. What it demonstrates is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so , it again fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a rationally completely ready mind, at least at the time at which it was deduced.

A contemporary society that advances according to the above presuppositions - and primarily according to the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of nonnegotiable superiority to its people. All on, the power of passion dictates the pace of person's conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or willed relationships, the principle of equality fails to work precisely due to its superiority syndrome that grips the leader and the led. Along with a different society that refuses to share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the thought logic, become a potential or actual enemy and fronts confrontation on all possible fronts.

Most of what we have an understanding of the present world, of course, via the media, is centric by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of this type of technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It is far from only their advancement that lifts them to the epitome of power, superiority, and fame. They can also utilize technology to simplify and move forward an understanding of living and nature in a different direction, a direction which will tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between everyday living and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily mean that technological achievement is a mark of a superior civilization.

What we need to know is without a doubt that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civil people may have an advanced technology or they may not have it all. Civilization is not just a matter of science and products or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel for buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people as well as their level of social connectedness within their personally own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour beauty products of people that all forms of physical structures could be created, therefore too the question of science and technology. Therefore, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that we all can see in a society could tell, in a general technique, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern may tell a lot about the extent to which the natural environment has long been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Primarily, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the perceptions plus understanding of the people about other people.

I do believe - as well as, I think, most people do believe - that upon speeding up the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the earth has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technological innovation (and its attendant structures or ideas) competes using the green environment for space, this environment that properties trees, grass, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish should shrink in size. Yet the growth of population, the constant human craving for quality life, the need to control daily life without depending on the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the effective use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While the society may justly utilize technology to improve quality of life, the nation's people also have to ask: "how much technology do discovered safeguard the natural environment? " Suppose society Y varieties the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to counteract the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of placement of prompts the point that society Y is a lover from the principle of balance. From this principle, one can boldly explore that society Y favours stability more than chaos, as well as, therefore , the sense of moral and social guilt. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the sophistication of the individual mind, and it indicates that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.

If humans do not want to live at the mercy of the surrounding - which, of course, is an uncertain way of life - and yet according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is actually a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of harmony that society Y has chosen could only possibly be for a short while or that this is more of any make-believe position than a real one. For when the energy of the human mind gratifies itself following a momentous achieving success in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind will be telling itself: "technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult towards the inquiring mind. " This kind of thought process only points out the particular enigma of the mind, its dark side, not the finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present style of a certain technology according to the instructions of the mind, typically the role of ethics is indispensable.

Is it morally to use this kind of technology for this kind of product? And is the software morally right to use this kind of product? Both questions advice that the product or products in question are either undesirable or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they really don't only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the surroundings too. And if, as I have stated, the purpose of technology will be to improve the quality of life, then to use technology to produce products the fact that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of technologies, and it also falsifies an assertion that humans are realistic. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the individuals mind has reached is unable to grasp the essence or perhaps rationale of quality life. In this regard, a quiet coexistence with the natural environment would have been deserted for the sake of the unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would certainly, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or strategies that are untenable in any number of ways.

The advocacy that may be done by environmentalists relate to the question of environmentally friendly degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They make sure that there is no justification for producing high-tech products who harm both humans and the natural environment. This contention may seem persuasive. High technology may demonstrate the height in human accomplishment, but it may not point to moral and friendly responsibility. And to this point, the question may be asked: "In what ways can humans close the chasm in between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation? "

Labor, most modern humans tend to think that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to a super easy one. The former is supported by the weight regarding high technology, the latter is mostly not. The original eases the burden of depending too much on the dictates of your natural environment, the latter does not. The latter tends to search out a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former won't. Whether human comfort should come largely from a high technology or the natural environment is not a matter that may be easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking due to public growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is necessary to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that come about. It is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, among others, that are in need of criticism and have to stop.